fascinating and altogether indispensable…read at once

And that advice [about The Triumph of Human Empire] is given in bold face! Talk about rave reviews!

It’s from a Nov. 18, 2014 blog post by Wheeler Winston Dixon, Ryan Professor of Film Studies at the University of Nebraska. After quoting the publisher’s description of The Triumph of Human Empire, Prof. Dixon writes:

“This is an absolutely remarkable achievement, managing to effortlessly synthesize science and the arts – two supposedly polar pursuits in the modern era – and demonstrates that each cannot function without the other, and that all of us are interconnected by both areas, which are of equal importance in the creation and continuance of our shared cultural heritage….

“Williams argues convincingly, without being strident about it, that without the Romantic instinct we will never really fully comprehend our human condition, and at the same time, provides a thorough yet concise outline of the work of Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne – who despite his futuristic fantasies was not all that taken with the notion of what was then considered “progress” in the industrial era – and the author William Morris, whose work clearly needs wider attention.

“The result is a fascinating and altogether indispensable book, which I urge you to read at once.”

http://blog.unl.edu/dixon/

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Science Fiction at the End of the World

I am happy to report that a long essay review of The Triumph of Human Empire was recently published in Science Fiction Studies. There are a lot of things about this review that make me happy. First, the journal where it is published indicates that readers are making the connection between The Triumph of Human Empire and what is now commonly called science fiction (but which has a richer, deeper history beyond works usually given this label). Second, the review is very positive (ending with the comment that the book “reads like a fascinating journey into the uncharted territory of the creative process”). Third, the review is itself creative and perceptive, making connections I wish I had thought of when writing the book. Finally, the review is written by Marie-Helene Huet, an eminent scholar of French literature, culture, and Enlightenment philosophy, whose work I have long admired. Put all this together and the outcome is a very happy author.

Science Fiction Studies
Vol. 41 (2014): 642-49.

Marie-Hélène Huet

“Art, Bricolage, and Engineering at the End of the World”
Rosalind Williams. The Triumph of Human Empire: Verne, Morris, and Stevenson at the End of the World. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2013. xi + 416 pp. $30 hc.

In her new book, The Triumph of Human Empire, Rosalind Williams explores what she describes as “an age of anxiety,” when increasing knowledge and control of the surface of the earth seemed to consecrate the triumph of human empire, while reducing and altering the landscape over which it ruled. Williams borrows the term “human empire” from a short utopian fiction by Francis Bacon, New Atlantis, first published in English in 1627, in which the survivors of a shipwreck discover in the South Seas an island ruled by the descendants of the lost city. The island offers the model of a culture based on religious beliefs, rationality, and thirst for knowledge. The head of Salomon’s House, which could be described as an ideal research institution, sums up its goals and ambition in these simple words: “The End of our Foundation is the Knowledge of Causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of Human Empire, to the effecting of all things possible” (qtd. in Williams 17). It may be worth noting that the title page of New Atlantis bore the phrase “A Worke Unfinished.” Some readers argue that Bacon had planned to return to the tale, but one may suggest that Bacon himself knew that the intellectual and scientific model he had sketched out was an open-ended program that could lead to unimaginable powers and prowess, but on a far distant horizon: the acquisition of knowledge is an endless work-in-progress.

By the end of the nineteenth century, however, part of the scientific program described in New Atlantis had been accomplished: the mapping of the world was almost complete, and the planet, writes Williams, “had been reshaped according to human desires with increasing scope, scale, and speed” (334). But progress and the active pursuit of knowledge had a cost. “The intention may be the so-called ‘conquest of nature,’ but these interventions also have the effect of making the planet less stable, durable, and predictable…. World loss, whether through change or migration or both, is the ghost in the machine of human empire, the specter that haunts it with foreboding of endless losses to come” (334-36). Williams proposes to examine the doubts and pessimism that pervaded the times—what she also describes as fin-du-globe anxiety (16)—through the works of three authors: Jules Verne, William Morris, and Robert Louis Stevenson. Citing their distrust—at times rejection—of civilization as it was understood by the European powers, she notes that “they write of it as an exogenous force and contemplate with anguish the loss entailed by its inexorable advance” (20). Verne, Williams, and Stevenson came from different backgrounds and expressed in their works a variety of political opinions; but all three exemplify in their own way what it meant to feel “trapped by and alienated from their civilization” (20).

Williams’s choices are intriguing and will no doubt surprise those who still consider Jules Verne as an author for children, admire William Morris for his contributions to the Art and Crafts movement, or know Robert Louis Stevenson only as the author of Treasure Island (1883). But, although their lives followed different paths, Williams notes some intriguing similarities in their experiences and beliefs: the importance of water and the North Sea, their sense of exile, their political activities, and, more importantly, their turn to romance in defiance of social and literary tradition.

Verne, the most read and widely translated of the three, has long been known to his readers as a writer fascinated by the powers of scientific imagination and haunted by their consequences. The magnificent machines he describes reflect, to use Arthur B. Evans’s words, a kind of “mechanical mysticism” (130). If these technological wonders open the way to unforgettable worlds, they are also linked to wars and destruction; they engage in battles, they kill, and they do not survive at the end of the novels. The Nautilus, which is presumed lost along with Captain Nemo at the end of Vingt mille lieues sous les mers [Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas, 1870], will be solemnly buried with its captain under the volcanic grotto of L’Île mystérieuse [The Mysterious Island, 1874]. Nothing will be saved from this masterpiece: the machine has become a coffin. The fate of the submarine could be read symbolically as Verne’s conflicted feelings about human civilization. If Pierre-Jules Hetzel, Verne’s publisher, was absolutely clear about the positive message he wanted conveyed by the works of his author, the manuscripts, correspondence, and the later publication of Paris au XXe siècle [Paris in the Twentieth Century, 1994] all illustrate Verne’s pessimism and his more or less successful resistance to his publisher. Hetzel exemplifies the triumphant will of nineteenth-century expansionism when he writes in his preface to the Géographie illustrée de la France: “Our civilization is endowed with such an expansive force, it is armed with such powerful means and is a power growing so rapidly that no country, as remote as it may be, will evade its investigations and escape its domination” (iii, my translation). But Verne was perhaps the more clairvoyant when judging of the consequences.

While acknowledging that Verne did not escape from his conservative bourgeois environment, Williams offers, along with a detailed biographical account, perceptive analyses of Verne’s conflicted views about the growing powers that oppressed legitimate national aspirations and led to the eradication of native populations. She notes the initial triumphalism that permeates Cinq semaines en ballon [Five Weeks in a Balloon, 1863], concluding that this novel—the first in the VOYAGES EXTRAORDINAIRES series—“presents two assertions of superiority: the collective superiority of Western technical and scientific adeptness and the personal authority of the instrumentally adept, emotionally repressed commander whose mission carries him away from the muddy earth to the great currents of air and water endlessly flowing around the planet” (95). Nemo’s personification of resentful anarchy, his masterful use of technology coupled with his hatred of colonial powers and his compassion for freedom fighters, certainly speaks to Verne’s own views on the dangers and limits of human empire. Williams pays particular attention to the late novels, Magellania (written 1897; published as Les Naufragés du “Jonathan” [The Survivors of the “Jonathan”] in 1909) and Le Phare du bout du monde [The Lighthouse at the End of the World, 1905], in which “the heroes move from defiance of civilization to acceptance of missions of human improvement, symbolized by the construction of lighthouses that triumph over the elemental powers of darkness and chaos” (125). Verne, she concludes, “speaks for human empire and also defies it” (129).

The second part of the book, devoted to William Morris, develops a theme that will acquire considerable symbolic importance in his works: landscapes, from the flat marshlands of Essex to the great river Thames and its tributaries threatened by industrial development. Morris’s residences along the river all play a role in his literary imagination. If Verne sought a particular form of escape through what Williams prefers to call “geographical romance,” Williams turned resolutely to the past, more specifically to the Middle Ages he studied at Marlborough College and Oxford. While launching his textiles and painted papers firm, Morris started composing poetry, The Earthly Paradise (1868-1870), and translating old Norse stories. His discovery of Iceland in the summer of 1871 played a major role in his life. It would be interesting to compare Morris’s account of his travels in Iceland with Verne’s beginning of the Voyage au centre de la Terre [Journey to the Center of the Earth, 1864] where humans (Hans in particular) and horses survive, far from industrial development, in the splendid isolation of the volcanic country.

Morris, unlike Verne, became a Socialist, joining the Democratic Federation in 1883. From then on, his literary works were marked by his conviction that the accelerated pace of progress was accompanied by “a pervasive insensitivity to all the problems of change” (Williams 194). News from Nowhere: or, An Epoch of Rest (1890) is a melancholy quest for a better world that takes the hero up the Thames to a future society where “all signs of squalor or poverty had disappeared” (Morris qtd. in Williams 206). The Well at the World’s End (1896), another fantasy, leads the heroes to Iceland in search of restorative waters. Morris turned to imaginary worlds that have been seen as the forerunners of Tolkien’s works.

Morris’s predilection for northern sagas as a way of reconnecting humans to their past and to nature reminded me of the tremendous success of Ossian, the Gaelic cycle of epic poems James Macpherson started publishing in 1760. Macpherson presented the epic as a translation of authentic tales he had collected through oral transmission. Ossian’s success was prodigious throughout Europe and doubts about the authenticity of the poems did not prevent Ossian from becoming one of the most influential works in the history of Romanticism from Goethe to Chateaubriand. Jules Verne himself quoted Ossian on several occasions to express the unique character of Gaelic landscape and spirituality. The revival of Gaelic and Nordic mythology corresponded to a desire for a new form of expression that rejected the strict constraints of literary classicism and allowed a free range of exalted emotions. Morris, too, was a Romantic. But he was also haunted by the desire to send a social message.

Robert Louis Stevenson’s literary fame is inseparable from Treasure Island, which quickly became a classic of literary adventure. The youngest of the authors considered by Williams, Stevenson shares with his predecessors a love of the seas and a particular connection with coastlines: his grandfather had received a contract from Parliament to build several lighthouses on the Scottish coast. Educated as an engineer, he spoke with eloquence of a craft that led a man to harbors and wild islands, ships and seas, but ultimately led him back to his drawing and the drudgery of office life. Jules Verne again would have embraced the first part of Stevenson’s description, and his ideal engineers (Nemo, Cyrus Smith) apply their knowledge only to gain more freedom. When Stevenson turned to writing and fiction, he drew fascinating parallels between art and mathematics as two methods of creating a limited amount of order in a world dominated by chaos.

Stevenson’s first travel stories, unlike Verne’s ambitious Cinq semaines en ballon, related more modest inland trips on a canoe or on the roads. But his affair with Fanny Vandegrift Osbourne, an American woman separated from her husband and living in France, changed the course of Stevenson’s life. Recalled to San Francisco by her husband, Fanny left. After receiving an alarming letter from her in 1879, Stevenson joined Fanny in America, a long voyage for a young man who had already suffered from acute lung problems. In the section describing Stevenson’s journey across the Atlantic and the railway trip across the continental United States, the reader starts to imagine Stevenson himself as a Vernian character endowed with the wit and the observational capacity typical of Verne’s journalists and the romantic inclinations of his artists.1

But the most striking affinity between Verne and Stevenson, at this point, is their attention to coastlines. One remembers the detailed outlines of Verne’s L’Île mystérieuse or his descriptions of the rocky Grecian peninsula in L’Archipel en feu [Archipelago on Fire, 1884]. Stevenson noted during his trip in the United States that “we are creatures of the shore” (qtd. in Williams 285). On his return to England, now married to Fanny, Stevenson wrote his bestseller, Treasure Island, followed by two of his best-known works, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) and Kidnapped (1886). By 1884, Stevenson had realized part of his dream: he had become a successful writer and had married the woman he loved. But there was to be no rest. His search for a better climate that would cure his lung problems took him to the South Seas, which he explored for several years, from Tahiti to Hawaii, before settling down in the Samoan islands where he would die.

Williams speaks at length of his South Seas experiences and Stevenson’s efforts to find a literary form that would convey his deep conviction that the historical changes he had witnessed in England, America, and the Pacific islands threatened the survival of local populations. His The Wrecker (1892; co-written with his stepson, Lloyd Osbourne), his correspondence, and A Footnote to History: Eight Years of Trouble in Samoa (1892) all reflect his continued wonder at the seas, his undiminished taste for adventure, and his ambitious desire to express his views on the expansion of colonial powers in the Pacific. The modestly entitled A Footnote to History received high praise from the New York Times reviewer who seized on both the political and literary importance of the book: “Such a story deserves to have an ample record in these times. Mr. Stevenson has not only recorded it in an ample way; he has made the record an entertaining and brilliant piece of narrative” (“R.L. Stevenson”). As Williams notes of the last work: “He was writing an epic appropriate not for the Roman empire, but for the human empire” (316). Many other texts would follow, described by Williams as “hybrid romance-realism” about the islands (322).

One in particular attracts the reader’s attention, a violent tale entitled The Ebb-Tide (1893), co-written with Stevenson’s stepson. This grim account of the violence of imperialism echoes, Williams notes, many aspects of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899). The epidemic of smallpox that has decimated the first crew of the ship at the beginning of the story—and that is found again later in the most remote island in the Pacific—testifies to the fate of future colonies. Like Tahiti, ravaged by the diseases the Europeans had brought with them in the eighteenth century, the most isolated island in the South Seas is threatened by the most disgraced European adventurers. The islands have not only been corrupted by industrial powers, but also European powers have produced among their own people miserable creatures that have long “gone downward” in an infinite spiral of despair. Stevenson died a year after the tale was written.

In the concluding chapter, Williams sums up the themes that effectively linked three authors as apparently different as Verne, Morris, and Stevenson—in particular, their shared anxiety about the rapid global changes they witnessed and distrusted: “Verne, Morris, and Stevenson all respect the material powers of organized humankind, but they also tell cautionary stories related to these powers…. They see truth in the utopian story and the dystopian one. There are also moments when they see the truth in a story about the world disappearing completely and forever” (334). “Romance,” she adds, “not only expresses their sense of a haunted world but also serves to exorcize its ghosts…. It tells stories about the larger forces, sometimes mysterious ones, at work in the individual and in the world” (336). These authors’ lives, of course, are also a form of lesson in courage, especially their decision to embrace an art to which they were not initially prepared by their upbringing or family tradition. They all became involved in public affairs, although Verne’s public role and political contributions were rather modest. The art of romance the three authors adopted, Williams concludes, “points to experience liberated beyond the tyranny of circumstances, beyond the triumph or the fall of human empire” (347).

The choice of the word “romance” or “geographic novel” to describe Verne’s works, rather than “speculative fiction” or “scientific novel,” may be surprising—particularly from Williams, a distinguished historian of technology. But Verne himself described the VOYAGES EXTRAORDINAIRES as both “geographic and scientific novels” (Dumas et al. 88). The reader will also think of H.G. Wells, who would have perfectly completed this gallery of literary portraits. Trained as a biologist, Wells was also a Socialist who chose literature to express his political convictions. But Wells belongs to the next generation, and Williams’s thoughtful analysis of his predecessors helps us to understand Wells’s debts to the hybrid genre they had developed.

For those particularly interested in the relationship between literature and science, or science fiction as genre, Williams describes in two distinct passages the relationship between art and engineering. In the first one, she discusses Morris’s vast range of activities as “engineering.” “It is not a term Morris himself used,” she notes, “since he typically identified engineers as culturally stunted Philistines. In practice, though, he sought to redefine engineering as much as he sought to redefine socialism. His activities add up to an alternative mode of engineering, lay rather than professional, and linked with history and art rather than with science as primary source of practical knowledge” (212). A little later, Williams cites Stevenson’s comparison between mathematics and art: “Life is monstrous, infinite, illogical, abrupt and poignant; a work of art, in comparison, is neat, finite, self-contained, rational…. A proposition of geometry does not compete with life; and a proposition of geometry is a fair and luminous parallel for a work of art” (qtd. 251) Williams adds: “This is not engineering as ‘messing around,’ as it was for William Morris…. Through mathematics, the engineer creates order and abstraction, not by imitating the messy complexity of life but by reducing it to manageable forms” (251).

These reflections bring to mind Lévi-Strauss’s famous lines on “bricolage,” and the distinctions he makes between the bricoleur and the engineer:

“Consider [the bricoleur] at work and excited by his project. His first practical step is retrospective. He has to turn back to an already existent set made up of tools and materials, to consider or reconsider what it contains and, finally and above all, to engage in a sort of dialogue with it and, before choosing between them, to index the possible answers which the whole set can offer to his problem…. But the possibilities always remain limited by the particular history of each piece and by those of its features which are already determined by the use for which it was originally intended or the modifications it has undergone for other purposes. The elements which the bricoleur collects and uses are “pre-constrained” like the constitutive units of myth, the possible combinations of which are restricted by the fact that they are drawn from the language where they already possess a sense which sets a limit on their freedom of manoeuvre.” (18-19)

But the difference between the bricoleur and the engineer, Lévi-Strauss adds, is not absolute:

“The engineer no doubt also cross-examines his resources…. It might be said that the engineer questions the universe, while the bricoleur addresses himself to a collection of oddments left over from human endeavors, that is, only a sub-set of the culture. Again, Information Theory shows that it is possible, and often useful, to reduce the physicists’ approaches to a sort of dialogue with nature. This would make the distinction we are trying to draw less clear cut.
There remains, however, a difference even if one takes into account the fact that the scientist never carries on a dialogue with nature pure and simple but rather with a particular relationship between nature and culture definable in terms of his particular period and civilization and the material means at his disposal…. He too has to begin by making a catalogue of a previously determined set consisting of theoretical and practical knowledge, of technical means, which restrict the possible solutions.” (19)

From Morris’s “messy engineering” to Stevenson’s admirable definition of the limited, complete, rational world of mathematics and art; from Nemo’s secret conception of the Nautilus to Cyrus Smith’s ingenious bricolage on Lincoln island, it is fair to say that speculative fiction and fantasy play with all the possibilities of mastering the infinitely complex world of nature. “Any classification is superior to chaos” (15), Lévi-Strauss asserts. The art of Romance explored by Williams, the scientific novel Hetzel wanted to promote and Verne reluctantly produced, Asimov’s robots, Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), all aim to create, at the same time and by different means, a seemingly finite, self-contained world—that is, a world under control. But the scientific/mathematical model that sustains this clear and luminous world is itself shattering its completeness and destroying its order. In 2001, HAL kills and destroys the safe and closed environment of Discovery One as surely as the volcano that had previously ruined all of the heroes’ efforts on L’Île mystérieuse. At the end of the movie, a free-floating embryo travels through space, “beyond the infinite.” There will be no closure. The Vernian traveler closes a cycle and returns home, but at what cost? Hatteras was initially meant to die at the North Pole, but at Hetzel’s insistence, Verne rewrote the end: Hatteras survives his expedition and returns to England, but he has lost his mind. Initially, in the first version of L’Île mystérieuse, Nemo never repudiated his love for freedom, and still died absolved of murder. Similarly the “bricolage” that presides over Morris’s tales influenced by Norse mythology gathers and builds models from preexisting materials to produce a new but also unstable world. Stevenson’s Ebb-Tide shows, among other things, the incapacity to find or imagine a truly complete world, be it the furthest island, free from the disease and corruption of human empire.

The Triumph of Human Empire: Verne, Morris, and Stevenson at the End of the World brilliantly explores the troubled consciousness of writers who were fully aware of the mixed rewards of political expansion and scientific knowledge. The book addresses the complexity of translating human experience into an artistic vision. Williams’s attention to landscapes and geographical discoveries, from the poetry of shorelines to the glory of the Jubilee Atlas, also describes a literary world born from triumph and disillusion. “The mission to chart the globe,” she writes, “is inseparable from the race to claim it” (14). Her book itself reads like a fascinating journey into the uncharted territory of the creative process.

NOTES
1. See, in particular, Harris T. Kymbale and Max Réal in Le Testament d’un eccentrique [The Will of an Eccentric, 1899].
WORKS CITED
Dumas, Olivier, Volker Dehs, and Piero Gondolo della Riva, eds. Correspondance inédite de Jules et Michel Verne avec l’éditeur Louis-Jules Hetzel (1886-1914). Vol. 1. Geneva: Slatkine, 2004.
Evans, Arthur B. “Jules Verne’s Dream Machines: Technology and Transcendence.” Extrapolation 54.2 (2013): 129-46.
Hetzel, Pierre-Jules. “Au Lecteur.” Géographie Illustrée de la France et de ses Colonies by Jules Verne and Théopile Lavallée. Paris: Hetzel, 1870. i-iv.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. Ed. Julian Pitt-Rivers and Ernest Gellner. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1966. 18-19.
“R.L. Stevenson: Eight Years of Trouble Have Him for Historian.” New York Times 14 Aug. 1892. Online. 8 Aug. 2014.
Verne, Jules. Le Testament d’un eccentrique. Paris: Hetzel, 1899. Translated (anon.) as The Will of an Eccentric. London: Sampson, Low, 1900.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Advice for the History-lorn

My academic project for the summer does not involve writing anything: from that I can use a break. Instead I have been going through a pile of clippings and notes (both hard copy and on-line) accumulated while writing The Triumph of Human Empire. It is my mulch pile for some future crop. It’s mostly words, some numbers, and some images (maps are crucial). The only way I can make any sense of it at all is to sort it into folders labeled by other words, which is to say by keywords.

A lot of my folders are categorized by keywords from the Human Empire project, which tend to be biggies: Water, Romance, Historiography, Phenomenology, Modernity, Nature, Place, and so forth. I will be working with those keywords until my dying scholarly breath. I have also discovered, however, that I am ditching some biggie labels–notably “Environment” and “Technology,” which have become everything and nothing, at once vacuous and “hazardous” (Leo Marx’s warning label for the word/concept “technology”).

Then there are more narrowly defined topics, less grand but also less hazardous: Belgian agricultural history, Saint-Simonianism, Symbolism, Romanticism, and fin de siècle (the 19th century, that is), for example. I have also added some new categories, such as Exploration and Migration, that I should have introduced long ago.

Finally, and most important, there is a new category that had to be invented, as I began to accumulate a stack of clippings and notes that didn’t fit into any of the above. Some of them were going into “Nostalgia,” some into “The End” (in the sense of the “rolling apocalypse” discussed in Human Empire), some into “Crisis.” But what they had in common wasn’t so much a topic as a tone—the tone of an advice column. They address an implicit audience of readers who feel spurned by history, who want to “make a difference” but who find it hard to have any confidence that they can at the beginning of a century that keeps tossing up reminders of The End.

AT first I tried the label “Loss and Change” (after one of my favorite books, by Peter Marris), but this didn’t fit all the items in the pile. I also tried “Mourning,” Marris’s larger theme, but that didn’t work either. I ended up labeling the pile “Psychic Management,” though I am not crazy about it either. For one thing, “psychic “ may be be too much associated with thinking and not enough with feeling. Stuff in this pile shows how history looks from the inside out, and the human “inside” is heavy with feelings.

Furthermore, both thoughts and feelings are inseparable from behavior. Developing a sense of history may sound highly academic, but it includes a lot of tacit knowledge, and all sorts of practical life decisions depend on it. The advice column tone is responding to an implicit practical question: how you make a life in a world that you think and feel is at the mercy of historical forces far beyond your power to influence, much less to control ?

Well, the historian is compelled to ask, so what else is new? What is new in the modern world is the conviction that it might be otherwise [see: The Enlightenment}. What is new in the 21st century is the common underlying assumption that the driving force in history is now climate change. There are many other historical forces at work in the world, but this has been the game-changer in how many people think, feel, and increasingly behave as historical actors. I am not saying the focusing on economics or militarism would make anyone feel less history-lorn – but the conviction of environmental determinism has come to dominate how people think about history altogether.

It will be interesting to see how this pile stacks up over time. Contributions to it are welcome. So are suggestions for a better label.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Our Technological Age, from the Inside Out

Even–especially–in “our technological age,” which is so often equated with “our digital age,” it can be nice to see something you have written in hard copy, on paper. A hand-written letter, for example, or, in this case, the printed version of the da Vinci Medal lecture I gave last fall in Portland, Maine, at the annual meeting of the Society for the History of Technology. The Society always publishes these lectures afterwards in its journal Technology and Culture. The April issue of T&C arrived yesterday, in the mail, in hard copy. I have to say that seeing the talk in print was a soul-rewarding moment.

These circumstances explain why the talk begins with some brief personal comments. It moves on to recall an important debate about the history of technology starring Leo Marx, Mel Kranzberg, and Tom Hughes, all founders, movers, and shakers in the history of technology. From there the talk goes on to discuss some even longer-ago but not far-away writers who still speak to us, such as Robert Louis Stevenson, Jules Verne, and William Morris (the latter a major inspiration for J.R.R. Tolkien). The talk ends with manifesto calling for the history of technology to be understood as the history of consciousness. It’s not short, but it’s also not too long. I hope that you enjoy it all.

(Note: Formatting is imperfect in this version. For a much better copy, go to Project Muse, where T&C is published on line by the Johns Hopkins University Press.)

Our Technological Age, from the Inside Out

By Rosalind Williams

Bern Dibner Professor of the History of Science and Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Da Vinci Medal Address
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the History of Technology
Portland, Maine, October 2013

Published in Technology and Culture, Vol. 55, No. 2 (April 2014): 461-76

From Context to Big Questions
The spirit of come-one-come-all has long pervaded our fair society. It is evident in the warm hospitality of our annual meetings, in the carefully chosen title of our journal Technology and Culture, and in founding father Melvin Kranzberg’s tireless invocation of the “contextual history of technology” without specifying any limits or rules as to what context might include.

Nevertheless, I have to admit that at times I feel like an imposter among my friends and colleagues here. I may come from a family of engineers, but I myself majored in a combined history and literature program as an undergraduate, wrote a senior thesis on Methodist hymns and Romantic poetry, got a doctorate in intellectual history, avoided math and science courses, never took a course in the history of technology, and never studied with a historian of technology.

The ways I have pursued the history of technology work around these embarrassing deficiencies and all too obviously display my apparently unrelated obsessions. Consequently, being awarded the da Vinci Medal feels like an out-of-body experience: this can’t be happening to me! My great pleasure and privilege is to accept this medal on behalf of all SHOT members who also wonder if they belong here. If the society so honors me, then it reaffirms that the SHOT tent is bigger and stronger than ever, and that your deficiencies and obsessions are still welcome here. The remarks that follow are intended to promote such inclusion by suggesting that some humanistic obsessions—notably consciousness and language—do not necessarily result in weak versions of the history of technology but in different and arguably sometimes stronger versions. [End Page 461]

A generation ago, in the early 1990s, SHOT’s generous spirit of inclusion gave rise to a debate about contextualism that has never really reached a conclusion, and probably never should. It arose from the publication in 1988 of an edited volume titled In Context: History and the History of Technology—Essays in Honor of Melvin Kranzberg, edited by Stephen Cutcliffe and Robert Post and published upon Mel’s retirement by Lehigh University Press. Three years later, in 1991 (the wheels of the academy can turn slowly), my MIT colleague Leo Marx published a review of the book in the pages of Technology and Culture. At the end of the first paragraph, Leo rather disingenuously raised what he claimed to consider a simple question: What is the rationale for distinguishing the history of technology from history? More generally, what is the rationale for distinguishing specialized histories from general history?

Leo Marx was not arguing that technology is unimportant in history. On the contrary, he was arguing that it is so pervasive and influential that it cannot be bracketed off as a special category in the same way that, say, the history of music, or of mathematics, or even the history of science, could be so distinguished. The boundaries of technology are unusually obscure, he proposed, for there is no human activity that does not involve it: “If we grant the claims of the contextualists, how can we justify segregating the history of technology … from the history of the societies and cultures that shape it?”1 Broadening the concept of technology to that of “technological systems,” as had been done in the 1980s, only underscored (in Leo’s view) the lack of a rationale for making this a specialized inquiry. He quoted a remark made by Mel Kranzberg: “We call ours a ‘technological age.’ … How did it get that way? That indeed is the major question that the history of technology attempts to answer.”2

Leo agreed with the centrality of the question. He did not, however, accept Mel’s tacit assumption that its answer would be found in artifacts or processes commonly referred to as technological. Instead, Leo claimed, the most respected scholars who had taken up this question—he listed among others Lewis Mumford, Jacques Ellul, and Thomas Parke Hughes—were open to the possibility that the answer lay in “a culturally nurtured propensity to mechanize as many aspects of life as possible.” Marx was especially intrigued by Hughes’s concept of technological momentum, in which Hughes avoids the trap of technological determinism but “asks us to imagine a critical point, or moment of tilt, when a people’s dependence on such a [technological] system, or system of systems, becomes the chief determinant of their behavior.”3

A year later, in April 1992, Mel responded to Leo’s review in a Communication to Technology and Culture. He was understandably upset, [End Page 462] given that his core professional mission in life had been to define the history of technology as a distinct branch of historical studies. In responding, Mel repeated his conviction that for historians of technology “truly to understand our technological age,” they needed to study machines “both internally and externally—that is, contextually.” He concluded with a remark that suggested how wounding Leo’s comments had been: “Leo,” he wrote, “let’s not change ‘the machine in the garden’ to ‘the snake in the grass.’”4

Leo’s counter-response followed in the same Communication. He ignored the allusion to personal betrayal and repeated his point: the disagreement is not about the importance of the role of technology in history, but about the appropriateness of a separate teaching and research program for it. He went on to suggest that “all this is, in the telling phrase, merely academic.” He proposed an alternative approach that would be less so: “The history of technology is here to stay, so why not opt for a bolder, more interesting, if more problematic, rationale? Why not start with the intuitively compelling idea that technology may be the truly distinctive feature of modernity?”
Historians of technology could adopt Mel’s concept of a “technological age” as a central hypothesis and then build a teaching and research agenda around it: “The aim would be to understand all of the ways that technological knowledge, processes, and behaviors in fact distinguish modernity from other ages—other societies and cultures. Such a program could open many avenues of investigation, too many in fact to enumerate here.”5

Well, why not? Why not take the history of technology up a notch, or two? Why not turn up the volume to 11? Why not clear some new avenues of investigation, and swagger a bit in self-importance? If the history of technology is worth our efforts as a separate program and distinct branch of the historical discipline, we should ask some really big questions, and also make sure other people know what we are up to.

At the time Leo and Mel were jousting in the pages of Technology and Culture, I had just published a book titled Notes on the Underground, which begins with this sentence: “What are the consequences when human beings dwell in an environment that is predominantly built rather than given? This book seeks to answer that question. It explores the psychological, social, and political implications of living in a technological world.”6

I thought then and still think that examining the advent of a “technological world” is a big and important question. I now think it is an even bigger and more important question, at least for a historian, to ask about the advent of a technological age, as both Mel Kranzberg and Leo Marx were discussing it. More specifically, this big question is the one Leo attributes [End Page 463] to Tom Hughes in asking us “to imagine a critical point, or moment of tilt,” when conditions of history were altered, “when a people’s dependence on such a [technological] system, or system of systems, becomes the chief determinant of their behavior.”7

Asking this question shifts the focus from space (underground or otherwise) to time. Examining the advent of this technological age of ours does not take for granted that its defining characteristic is the physical environment of human life. It leaves that question open. If we test this hypothesis, we are not giving up context; we are, however, defining contextualism as a method rather than an end in itself. My most recent book is dedicated to Leo Marx and Tom Hughes, and it represents my best effort to answer the big question they raised, as did Mel, in asking how our technological age got that way.8

From Technological World to Technological Age

When we wonder when and why history tipped toward a “technological age,” we commonly look to material surroundings for the answers. We do this not only as historians but also as ordinary human beings living in a material world that is full of sharp sense-based contrasts between past and present. So, for example, when Jules Verne was asked to write a brief autobiographical sketch for a Boston-based children’s magazine in 1891, he looked back over the decades to his hometown of Nantes, on the river Loire, where he had been born in 1828. He wrote:

“I have seen the birth of phosphorus matches, fake collars, cuffs, letter paper, stamps, the overcoat, the opera-hat, the ankle boot, the metric system, steamboats on the Loire, called “inexplosible” because they blew up a little less often than the others, omnibuses, railways, tramways, gas, electricity, the telegraph, the telephone, the phonograph! I am of the generation between these two geniuses, [George] Stephenson [inventor of the steam locomotive] and [Thomas] Edison!”9

On the whole, like Verne, historians of technology are struck by human-built artifacts like these as primary evidence of technological change, especially in what we all agree is a critical period between the age of steam and that of electricity. For layman and professional historian alike, material artifacts define the history of technology—items such as tools, gadgets, and consumer products, as well as larger systems of transportation and communication and power. These are the black boxes that we open, contextualize, [End Page 464] and analyze as to their motivation, design, construction, maintenance, and even that ugly commonplace word “impact.” In all this we assume the world of technological reality is out there: we are users, spectators, even the creators, but the real thing is material and external to us. The world of our own inner experience may have its power and interest, but it is not the stuff of technological reality.

Such assumptions are by no means limited to historians of technology. In an 1899 essay William James discusses “a certain blindness in human beings,” which keeps us from entering into “the feelings of creatures and people different from ourselves.” We are constantly aware of the strength of our own feelings, James writes, but this inward world is largely hidden from and unappreciated by others. “The subject judged knows a part of the world of reality which the judging spectator fails to see, knows more while the spectator knows less.”10

In his essay James quotes, with high praise, another essay, by Robert Louis Stevenson, published in 1888 and titled “The Lantern-Bearers.” The sport of lantern-bearing, Stevenson explains, occupied himself and his friends during black nights on the coast north of Edinburgh in those precious autumn days just before they returned to school. The boys would equip themselves with a tin bull’s-eye lantern, available at that season in any general grocery store. After being lighted with lamp oil, it remains dark until the bearer opens its door: then it shines forth a focused light, the rough equivalent of switching on a flashlight. The boys would put the lighted lanterns under their topcoats and venture out after dark. If two or more of them met, they would ask each other if they had their lanterns. If the answers were affirmative, the boys would start gathering in some isolated place on the shore, unveiling their lanterns to each other and indulging “in inappropriate talk.” “The essence of this bliss” of lantern-bearing was to walk as a “mere pillar of darkness in the dark,” all the while knowing “you had a bull’s-eye at the belt, and to exult and sing over the knowledge.”

Stevenson drew the lesson that what is most real and powerful in human experience is not the external material reality of the lantern but “the mysterious inwards of psychology” of its bearer. Those “inwards” are missed, Stevenson wrote, by “the observer (poor soul, with his documents!)” who is deceived if he looks at the coated person and misses the “true realism” of the intense inner experience: “The true realism, always and everywhere, is that of the poets to find out where joy resides, and give it a voice. … For to miss the joy is to miss all.”11 [End Page 465]

So here we are, we historians, poor souls with our documents, looking intently at lanterns but much less intently, usually, at lantern-bearers. What if we seek to understand our technological age beginning with subjective experience of the world rather than with the objects in it? What if the black box we pry open is first and foremost the human one? What if we seek “true realism” and examine what we like to call technology from the inside out?

I have tried to do something like this in my just-completed book The Triumph of Human Empire. The title is lifted from Francis Bacon, who used it in the early 1600s in a utopian tale in which he imagines the discovery of a new Atlantis. This make-believe island is not an empire in the usual sense of territorial control. Instead, it is the center of a vast, general expansion of human knowledge and power centered in a research foundation called Salomon’s House. Its leader describes its mission in a single sentence: “The End of our Foundation is the knowledge of Causes, and secret motions of things; and the enlarging of the bounds of Human Empire, to the effecting of all things possible.”12

Bacon’s tale is a work of imagination, and the reorientation of human imagination is the fundamental element of the advent of our technological age: a new historical condition of reorientation toward “technological knowledge, processes, and behaviors,” to quote Leo’s description of the critical point of tilt. Such imagination becomes the dominant site for human creativity and goals. This is more than technological enthusiasm for particular inventions or devices. It is a redirection of human energies and desires toward inquiry into and manipulation of the material world for all sorts of utilitarian and non-utilitarian purposes. It is an event of consciousness.

In The Triumph of Human Empire I have chosen three writers, from numerous possibilities, who more than most provide insight into this reorientation. Their imaginative works comprise an archive of consciousness for probing this crucial event of consciousness. These three writers—Jules Verne (1828–1905), William Morris (1834–1896), and Robert Louis Stevenson (1850–1894)—are all active in that epoch between Stephenson and Edison. They all set out on literary careers intending to write romances, defined as stories not too constrained by fidelity to the externals of material and social realism, stories featuring (in Henry James’s wonderful definition of romance) “experience liberated.”13

But all are frustrated by the mismatch between the inherited traditions of romance and the world emerging in their lifetimes. They reorient their work through encounters with what we would now call science and technology—encounters that redirect their story telling and allow them to reinvent romance for a technological age. In doing this, each of them became an influential artist in his own time and ever since, with a deep effect in [End Page 466] shaping modern consciousness with no end to their influence in sight. I will give a very brief description of how each writer accomplished this, before ending with some general observations on writing the history of technology as a history of consciousness, from the inside out.

Three Inventors

Jules Verne left Nantes in the revolutionary year of 1848, at the age of twenty, setting out for Paris to become a playwright. As the upheavals subsided into the Second Republic and then the Second Empire, Verne headed for “the whole Romantic coterie” (his expression) then dominating the theatrical world of the capital and started composing romantic comedies for the stage.14

However, his theatrical career never took off. While he was trying to hold body and soul together (with the help of his father and later with a job on the Paris stock exchange), Verne became more and more interested in exploration, engineering, and the science of his day. He read everything he could find on these subjects in newspapers and magazines of what was then called the “scientific press.” He made friends with like-minded souls such as Nadar (Félix Tournachon), the much-publicized photographer-balloonist. For fifteen or so years after 1848, living in the Paris of the Second Empire, Verne made many moves from one cheap apartment to another, allegedly taking with him a writing desk having two drawers, one labeled theatre and the other science.15

Verne merged the two drawers, so to speak, in the early 1860s, beginning with the publication of an adventure story, Five Weeks in a Balloon. With encouragement and sometimes heavy-handed guidance from editor Pierre-Jules Hetzel, Verne invented what he called the geographical romance, which led to a life-consuming project of mapping the globe and beyond in eighty-odd “extraordinary journeys.” These adventure stories are packed with information about inventions and expeditions of the type Verne had written about in nonfiction or lightly fictionalized articles for popular magazines. At the same time, the stories are staged like romantic comedies, featuring witty dialogue and racy innuendo on an especially imaginative set. About eight of Verne’s novels were actually staged in his lifetime, some of them running for hundreds of performances and reaping enormous profits. To this day Verne’s imaginary journeys are routinely restaged in the movies, while the basic plotlines and décor are endlessly recycled into steampunk mash-ups.

Verne’s fascination with the new material of contemporary science and engineering is evident through his works. Words, numbers, names, facts—the [End Page 467] narrative voice creates the story from detailed, precise, often specialized information, lovingly collected and assembled in unexpected combinations, with “vertiginous precision.”16 Futurist poet Guillaume Apollinaire is reputed to have exclaimed of Verne, “What style! Nothing but nouns (substantives)!”16 Verne composed his novels through the grafting and collage of textual fragments from scientific reports, myths, and popular tales, methodically recording them on index cards (supposedly 20,000 unused cards remain in his archives) and then folding them into a secondary world of text.

Critic Timothy Unwin calls Verne “the inventor par excellence.” Verne might also be called a textual engineer. He was acutely aware of the constructed character of his works and of his own active role in building them from pieces of information produced by others. He has one foot in the Renaissance age of exploration and the other in the information age.

A similar pivot may be seen in the experience of William Morris. As an artist he came of age nourished on the romances of medievalism, but he outgrew their constraints to invent new forms of romance ranging far beyond the ur-text of medievalism, the King Arthur stories. Morris’s passion for the Middle Ages began with his boyhood obsession with story telling, his adolescent wonder at Gothic cathedrals, and his discovery as a young man of a talent for design through his connections with other Pre-Raphaelite artists. Eventually this talent led to the establishment of a manufacturing company that became known simply as the Firm, engaged in flexible production and marketing for a specialty trade in the decorative arts, with an emphasis (especially at the outset) on motifs from the Middle Ages.

Thus Morris evolved from a youthful medievalist into what we would now call an innovator, entrepreneur, or maker. He could also be called a lay engineer, reminding us that in that remarkable epoch between Stephenson and Edison, the ancient profession of engineering was complicated in ways that have largely been forgotten. It was a time when engineering was becoming routinely and tightly connected with scientific research: in Bacon’s terms, power and knowledge were being methodically joined. But it was also a time when engineering was still a “mirror twin” of art as well as of science. As Eric Schatzberg has reminded us, “Before ‘applied science’ and ‘technology’ became keywords, the concept of art was central to discourse about material culture and its connections to natural knowledge.”17

For Morris, art was central because, as he proclaimed in an 1883 lecture, “ART IS MAN’S EXPRESSION OF HIS JOY IN LABOR.” The occasion for the speech was to announce his conversion to revolutionary socialism: the capital letters are in the written text, which Morris delivered to a hushed audience, shocked that a respectable manufacturer would support [End Page 468] this cause. But Morris, like Stevenson, felt that the “true realism” was to be found in giving a voice to art as the place where joy resides in human beings.

One way he did this was through manufacturing beautiful things. So, for example, while he understood the appeal of new aniline dyes for ease of use and durability in manufacturing fabrics and wallpapers, he believed they were unforgivably ugly. The more he worked with them, the more he became convinced that this was because they were supposed to last indefinitely. The mortality of the dye, Morris believed, was a primary source of its beauty; its graceful aging should be accepted, not resisted. This conviction led him to test a range of old dyes, working with craftsmen who had tacit knowledge of processes of matching colors and controlling fermentation in the vats, adjusting the process for different fabrics. Morris used similar approaches in developing production processes for weaving, carpetmaking, and tile- and glassmaking. In all these forms he was a sort of archeo-engineer, methodically researching techniques of the past to design a more beautiful home for humankind.

Morris also sought to give an artistic voice to joy through story telling. As a young man he developed an “encyclopedic approach to romance,” with an “ambition to collect every major story in literature and retell or translate it.”18 Later in life he published such stories in books that he himself designed and made by starting yet another manufacturing activity, the Kelmscott Press. Also later in life, Morris invented a new kind of romance, set in an indeterminate time and in an indeterminate setting—what J. R. R. Tolkien would later call a Secondary World.19 These late stories (such as The Story of the Glittering Plain and The Well at the World’s End) originated the modern genre of fantasy, with Tolkien himself as a crucial link between Morris’s reinvention of romance and the present day.20

If Morris was a lay engineer, Robert Louis Stevenson was a professional one. He was of the family of the “lighthouse Stevensons,” a dynasty established by his grandfather Robert and carried on by his father Thomas and his two brothers.21 Collectively they constructed dozens of lighthouses around the northern coast of Scotland and enjoyed a thriving practice in less glamorous river and port improvements throughout Scotland and England. When Louis (as his family called him) entered the University of Edinburgh in the fall of 1867, it was taken for granted that he was headed [End Page 469] for a career in engineering. He studied with Fleeming Jenkin, an outstanding electrical engineer of the time, and did summer internships at building sites associated with the family firm. Shortly after graduation, Louis received a prize for his senior thesis on intermittent lighthouse illumination.

Soon thereafter he renounced the family business (to the bitter disappointment of his father) to pursue his ambition of becoming a writer. But Louis maintained a deep, lifelong respect for the skills and hard work of engineers, and in his own work engineering and romance were constantly in dialogue. He was keenly alert to the romance of civil engineering—the open air, the dangers of the coast, the demands for dexterity, ingenuity, even heroism—while also recognizing the engineering skill required by writing. Whether the design is for a breakwater or a story, Louis explained in some of his critical essays, the designer needs the simplifying powers of symbolic expression to clarify the otherwise bewildering complexities of the world.

By the 1880s Stevenson had achieved a worldwide reputation as a writer of what we would now call genre fiction, including bestsellers such as The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Treasure Island, and Kidnapped. He expanded and reconfigured his understanding of romance when he journeyed to a new (for him) part of the world, the South Pacific. Not long after his father’s death, in the early summer of 1888, Louis set forth from San Francisco with his wife, her two children, and his mother. It was basically a business deal: the South Seas cruise was paid for by a New York publisher in return for letters in which the famous author would recount adventures and picturesque encounters there. Stevenson himself hoped the warm, humid climate would help restore his precarious health.

Nothing could be more romantic than Stevenson’s account of the July morning when the chartered sailing vessel approached an island of the far Marquesas: “The first experience can never be repeated. The first love, the first sunrise, the first South Sea island, are memories apart and touched a virginity of sense.”22 But almost immediately the Edenic romance began to fade and history began to reassert itself. A few days later, Louis and his wife Fanny paid a visit to some natives of the Marquesas, the son and daughter-in-law of Tari, a native of Hawaii. The couple, who brought their infant daughter with them, asked Louis to tell them about England. He tried to describe, with gestures and props such as shells, “the over-population, the hunger, and the perpetual toil.” There was a pause; he was not sure they understood. Then the mother held out her baby, who had been suckling at her breast, saying, “Tenez—a little baby like this; then dead. All the Kanaques [people] die. Then no more.”

Stevenson was taken aback by “so tranquil a despair” on the part of a mother who foresaw this same fate for her own flesh and blood. Suddenly he had a vision of universal death, global [End Page 470] extinction, not just of the people of the South Pacific but of people and cultures everywhere: “in a perspective of centuries I saw their case as ours, death coming in like a tide, and the day already numbered when there should be no more Beretani [whites], and no more of any race whatever, and (what oddly touched me) no more literary works and no more readers.”23

From that point on, he began to write a journal, intending it to be turned into publishable letters, to bear witness to this extinction. In it Stevenson tried to piece together, from a multiplicity of discrete events, encounters, and observations, the historical forces at work that were decimating the native Polynesians—history from the inside out, beginning from the natives’ own perception of their doom, not just inevitable but already enveloping them.

After leaving the Marquesas, Stevenson and his wife spent some months in Hawaii, which gave them what he considered a glimpse of an ugly but inevitable future, in which the “complications of civilization” submerge and drown every other possible way of life. Here he began to show the first signs of political engagement in South Seas affairs. He visited a leper colony on the island of Molokai and had conversations with the native king (Kalakaua) at a time when it was becoming clear that the Hawaiian monarchy was soon to be replaced by American rule.

When Stevenson eventually published some letters about the South Seas, they were short on the supposed romance of the region. Instead, he wrote about the experiences of loss and sorrow. In one letter he mentions the Hawaiian Tari, grandfather of the baby whose mother assumed it would soon die:

“I wonder what [Tari] would think if he could be carried there indeed, and see the modern town of Honolulu brisk with traffic, and the palace with its guards, and the great hotel … or what he would think to see the brown faces grown so few and the white so many; and his father’s land sold for planting sugar, and his father’s house quite perished, or perhaps the last of them struck leprous and immured between the surf and the cliffs on Molokai. So simply, even in the South Sea Islands, and so sadly, the changes come.”24

Stevenson spent the rest of his too-brief days in the South Pacific, taking three extended cruises and eventually settling in 1890 in Samoa. Once there he began experimenting with new forms of romance, trying to craft ones adequate to expressing the collective effects of these simple, sad changes. He pioneered what in the mid-twentieth century would be known [End Page 471] as “new journalism” in his polemical account of a dirty little colonial war in Samoa (A Footnote to History).25 He reworked Polynesian tales for a global audience (“The Isle of Voices” and “Something in It”) and wrote dark, gritty romances of colonial encounters (“The Beach of Falesá” and The Ebb-Tide).26

These works, like Stevenson’s few published letters from the South Seas, were largely ignored or even ridiculed by his contemporary readers. Only in the last generation have they begun to be appreciated as accounts of a historical turning point, where “our” (as seen from the West) “technological age” became “theirs” too, irrevocably altering both Europeans and Polynesians. This event is summed up in the first sentence of The Ebb-Tide: “Throughout the island world of the Pacific, scattered men of many European races and from almost every grade of society carry activity and disseminate disease.”27

Conclusion

In a feat of condensation, this unforgettable sentence implies a set of interactive processes now routinely described by a flock of abstract terms. Some of these terms imply “activity” of a beneficial kind: such as globalization, mobility, progress, development, innovation. Others have the negative connotation of “disease”: not just epidemics but also human trafficking, environmental collapse, and militarism.

These remarks began with the observation that historians of technology, like nearly everyone, suffer from a “certain blindness” that keeps us from apprehending the inner world of other creatures. In our particular case, this means that when we consider the history of technology, we are more likely to look at objects rather than the lived experience of human beings. In other words, we should resist the habit of identifying technology only with external objects.

These remarks come to a close with the observation that we face an equal if not even greater challenge in resisting the temptation to identify technology with abstract entities seemingly dissociated from objects and humans alike. As Leo Marx has contended, the concept of technology is “hazardous” because it “has been endowed with a thing-like autonomy and a seemingly magical power of historical agency. We have made it an allpurpose agent of change.”28 The same could be said of other abstract concepts mentioned above, both positive and negative in valence. Like the wizards in Stevenson’s short story “The Isle of Voices,” based on a Polynesian tale, processes like globalization and innovation may seem like invisible [End Page 472] but powerful forces, scooping up shells and setting fires on the beach while filling the air with loud but senseless babble.

One defining characteristic of our technological age is our crisis of language. How can we possibly understand this age when there is such a profound mismatch between lived experience and symbolic representation? On the one hand, we habitually discuss the technology of our technological age as an assemblage of material objects—a representation that deceives not by being untrue so much as by being incomplete, in omitting the reality of subjective experience. On the other hand, we also use the language of surrealism to point to historical forces that seem beyond our understanding, ghostly presences even if we ourselves have created them.

In “The Lantern-Bearers” Stevenson remarks on the “haunting and truly spectral unreality” of so-called realist novels, which miss the “true reality” of an individual, who dwells “in the warm, phantasmagoric chamber of his brain, with the painted windows and the storied walls.”29 Such “truly spectral unreality” also characterizes the language of particulars of the computer age where reality is assumed to be hardware, software, systems, and information, all exterior to the individual user. A similar unreality characterizes the never-ending discussions of disembodied processes such innovation and globalization, treated as fictive superselves engaged in neo-epic struggles, also acting outside and beyond the minds and powers of individuals.

Neither neo-realism nor neo-epics enable us to think clearly about our world and our age. Both individuals and history need plot, characters, and settings to make sense of who we are and where we are headed. Verne, Morris, and Stevenson all turned to imaginative literature for this understanding, using language that is allusive, rich, integrative, and value-laden. They revived and reoriented romance to fuse story line, characters, gestures, events, and the visible world into “a single, unified conscious field, a subjective awareness of the total conscious experience.”30

Verne’s geographic romances of exploration, Morris’s tales set in fantasy worlds, and Stevenson’s yarns of outlaw adventures all fed into the great revival of romance that began in the last half of the twentieth century. This revival continues to swell, with no end in sight, as science fiction, genre fiction, and fantasy all mix together in a seemingly boundless reservoir of imagination. These three writers have been enormously influential in defining our technological age, by giving it a story.

Or rather stories, given the underlying contradictions of the age. In many ways Verne, Morris, and Stevenson express the progressive understanding of history that has dominated the West since the time of Bacon: the conviction (to borrow Bacon’s language) that knowledge of causes and secret motions of things will lead to the enlarging of the bounds of Human [End Page 473] Empire and to the effecting of all things possible. Verne, Morris, and Stevenson are excited by these possibilities, and each of them, in his own way, explores the frontiers of science and engineering in his time.

But they see another pattern in the history of their time, one of spreading centers of loss and calamity, reinforcing each other in intersecting circles of unpredictability and uncertainty. Their belief in progress endures, but it is increasingly in conflict with their perception of history as rolling apocalypse. Stevenson foresaw the “unjust but inevitable extinction” of the Polynesians. Morris wondered if all the beautiful old cathedrals would be allowed to crumble and if all joy in labor would be crushed by the tyranny of wealth. As a young man in Paris, Verne bitterly concluded that bankers and business were sweeping away all the old languages and literatures. As an older man, visiting his hometown of Nantes one last time after the death of his parents, he lamented the destruction of the green hillsides running down to the Loire.

All of them faced, in the spirit of true realism, the prospect that what they most treasured in the world was disappearing. In this new historical condition, crisis is no longer imminent, out there on some future horizon. It has become immanent, incorporated into ongoing history. Verne, Morris, and Stevenson know that the end of the world in space is nigh. They also worry that this new condition of history might lead to the end of the world in time, as humankind runs out of room for error, evasion, and discard. How can we continue in the path to peace and prosperity when there is no relatively unsettled space for people to take their quarrels, or dump their refuse, or find new markets or cheap labor?

The lanterns of consciousness in Verne, Morris, and Stevenson project a deep and fundamental contradiction in historical consciousness. They are excited by a realm of new possibilities, while also preemptively mourning the inevitable losses it entails. This contradiction has become only more acute in our own age, where excitement about the latest software application coexists with a sense of environmental doom. This deeply conflicted inward experience of history—more than any technological object or process—is a defining quality of our technological age.

This contradiction runs through history and through ourselves as individuals. Verne, Morris, and Stevenson turned to literature as a supremely sensitive register of historical change and as a source for understanding, if not necessarily reconciling, these conflicting historical patterns. Like these writers, we historians turn to symbols—maps, numbers, images, and above all words—to try to understand the complexities of history. Like them, we discover that we have to keep reorienting ourselves and our work as we live through the very changes we are trying to understand and express. In doing this, we go where they have gone before, living in our technological age, asking the big questions, from the inside out. [End Page 474]

Bibliography

Allotte de La Fuÿe, Marguerite. Jules Verne, trans. Erik De Mauny. New York: Coward-McCann, 1956; Paris: Hachette, 1953 [1928].

Bacon, Francis. “New Atlantis.” In Selected Writings of Francis Bacon, edited by Hugh G. Dick, 543–84. New York: Modern Library, 1955.

Bathurst, Bella. The Lighthouse Stevensons. New York: HarperCollins, 1999.

Beer, Gillian. The Romance. London: Metheun & Co., 1970.

Clute, John. “Secondary World” and “J. R. R. Tolkien.” In The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, edited by John Clute and John Grant, 847, 950–55, respectively. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1997.

Costello, Peter. Jules Verne: Inventor of Science Fiction. New York: Scribner, 1978.

Frye, Northrop. The Secular Scripture: A Study of the Structure of Romance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.

James, William. On Some of Life’s Ideals. New York: Henry Holt, 1912 [1899, 1900].

Kranzberg, Melvin. “Communications: Comment and Response on the Review of In Context.” Technology and Culture 33, no. 2 (1992): 406–7.

Langford, David. “William Morris.” In The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, edited by John Clute and John Grant, 664–66. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1997.

Marx, Leo. “Review of In Context: History and the History of Technology—Essays in Honor of Melvin Kranzberg.” Technology and Culture 32, no. 2 (1991): 394–96.

_____. “Communications: Comment and Response on the Review of In Context.” Technology and Culture 33, no. 2 (1992): 407.

_____. “Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept.” Technology and Culture 51, no. 3 (2010): 561–77.

Schatzberg, Eric. “From Art to Applied Science.” Isis 103, no. 3 (2012): 555–63.

Searle, John R. “Can Information Theory Explain Consciousness?” Review of Christof Koch, Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. New York Review of Books, 10 January 2013, 54.
Stevenson, Robert Louis. South Sea Tales, ed. Roslyn Jolly. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

_____. In the South Seas, ed. Neil Rennie. London: Penguin, 1998 [1896].

_____. “The Lantern-Bearers.” In Stevenson on Fiction, edited by Glenda Norquay, 139–50. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999.

_____. A Footnote to History: Eight Years of Trouble in Samoa. Rockville, MD: Serenity Publishers, 2009.

Tolkien, J. R. R. “On Fairy-Stories.” In Essays Presented to Charles Williams, [End Page 475] edited (anonymously) by C. S. Lewis, 38–89. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1966; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947.

Unwin, Timothy. Textes réfléchissants: Réalisme et réflexivité au dix-neuvième siècle. French Studies of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, vol. 6. Bern: Peter Lang, 2000.

Verne, Jules. “Souvenirs d’enfance at de jeunesse,” translated and published as “The Story of My Boyhood,” in The Youth’s Companion 64 (9 April 1891), 211.

Williams, Rosalind. Notes on the Underground: An Essay on Technology, Society, and the Imagination. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.

_____. The Triumph of Human Empire: Verne, Morris, and Stevenson at the End of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

_____. “The Lantern-Bearers of the History of Technology,” History and Technology 29, no. 3 (2013): 262–77. [End Page 476]

Footnotes

1. Leo Marx, Review of In Context, 395.
2. Marx, quoting Kranzberg, in ibid., 396.
3. Marx, ibid.
4. Melvin Kranzberg, “Communications,” 406–7.
5. Leo Marx, “Communications,” 407.
6. Rosalind Williams, Notes on the Underground, 1.
7. Marx, Review, 396.
8. Rosalind Williams, The Triumph of Human Empire.
9. Jules Verne, “The Story of My Boyhood.” For further bibliographical details, see Williams, The Triumph of Human Empire, 2n2 and also 8.
10. William James, On Some of Life’s Ideals, 3, 4, 6 I also discuss James’s essay in Williams, “The Lantern-Bearers of the History of Technology.” I was finishing work on this article when I learned that I would be receiving the da Vinci Medal. Its themes were relevant to what I wanted to say in the da Vinci lecture, so there is some overlap between the two works.
11. Robert Louis Stevenson, “The Lantern-Bearers,” 144, 149.
12. Francis Bacon, “New Atlantis,” 574.
13. William James in The Americans, quoted by Gillian Beer, The Romance, 12.
14. Marguerite Allotte de La Fuÿe, Jules Verne, 39.
15. Ibid., 89 Allotte de La Fuÿe is not a very reliable biography, and this may be one of those stories that is too good to be true. There is no doubt that Verne took with him many unpublished manuscripts in his frequent moves.
16. Quoted by Timothy Unwin, Textes réfléchissants, 120 Unwin in turn cites Peter Costello, Jules Verne, 53.
17. Eric Schatzberg, “From Art to Applied Science,” 555.
18. Northrop Frye, The Secular Scripture, 4.
19. Tolkien routinely capitalized the term. J. R. R. Tolkien, “On Fairy-Stories.” This essay is an expanded version of a lecture first given by Tolkien in 1939 It was further expanded for publication in Tolkien, Tree and Leaf (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1964).
20. Frye, Secular Scripture, 4 See also John Clute, “Secondary World” and “J. R. R. Tolkien”; also David Langford, “William Morris.”
21. See the SHOT Hacker Prize–winning book by Bella Bathurst, The Lighthouse Stevensons.
22. Robert Louis Stevenson, In the South Seas, 6.
23. Ibid., 22–23.
24. Ibid., 20–21.
25. Robert Louis Stevenson, A Footnote to History.
26. All these are found in Robert Louis Stevenson, South Sea Tales, 123.
27. Stevenson, “Ebb-Tide,” in South Sea Tales, 123.
28. Leo Marx, “Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept,” 577.
29. Stevenson, “Lantern-Bearers,” 149.
30. John R. Searle, “Can Information Theory Explain Consciousness?”
Copyright © 2014 Society for the History of Technology

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

A tribute to history museums

I am honored to be part of this short film:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/documentsgallery/exhibitions/50th/

It is part of an exhibition celebrating the 50th anniversary of the opening of the National Museum of American History on The Mall in Washington, D.C. The history of technology has always had a creative interplay with the museum world: this film reminds us how enriching this has been for both.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

BBC The Forum: “Uncharted”

In April the BBC weekly program “The Forum” featured the theme of “uncharted,” with yours truly as one of three guests. It’s an intriguing topic for a world where we think everything is charted….until (for example) an airliner is lost with all aboard, not in space but somewhere on this planet — just where, no one yet knows….

Check out the show here.

And also check out my favorite [or as they would say in BBC Land, "favourite"] part of the show: my 60 Second Declaration of Aquatic Liberation, calling for freeing the waters of the earth.

The idea for the 60 second segment is to imagine something that would make the world a better place, with the emphasis on imagination. See what you think!

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Going [to] Google

Last week (Feb. 26, 2014) I had the pleasure and privilege of giving a talk at the Google office in Kendall Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts (streamed to other Google offices).  I was introduced by Owen Williams (yes, he is a relation), who made the arrangements for the talk.


Here it is on video — a forty-minute overview of TheTriumph of Human Empire. What is missing is the lunch and conversation afterwards—good reminders that history is too important to be left to historians.


Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

The Wall Street Journal Confronts Human Empire

The Wall Street Journal Online took notice of The Triumph of Human Empire in a review by distinguished environmental historian J.R. McNeill (Jan. 9, 2014):

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303393804579308471737968440

McNeill points out how many of us enjoyed these writers’ works as children: “Millions of people had their ideas about technology, nature and the human condition influenced by these men.” Reading them as adults, we can also see “how seriously they grappled with the problems of their day.” Their seriousness, however, does not get in their way of telling a good story. “If Ms. Williams introduces one more reader to the remarkable worlds of Morris’s ‘News from Nowhere’ or Verne’s ‘Invasion of the Sea,’ that is justification enough for her insightful book.” (I would add one more title to McNeill’s list: Stevenson’s ‘The Ebb-Tide,’ as compact and grim and memorable as Joseph Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness,’ but even better.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

A Book of the Year

That’s the judgment of The Economist.  I am pleased that it lists The Triumph of Human Empire among the best writing of 2013 in its “science and technology” category, with this citation:

“A magnificent attempt to recapture the sense, so prevalent at the end of the 19th century, that the world was finished, explored and done. The responses of the three creative men on whom Rosalind Williams focuses have strong resonances for anyone who worries about today’s Anthropocene era.”

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Age of the Anthropocene or Human Empire?

One of the current terms for describing the contemporary world is “the Age of the Anthropocene,” meaning the” age of man” as a new geological age based on an unprecedented human ability to alter the planet.  It is a useful and striking term, but I have always felt its shortcoming is that it reduces human history to a phase of natural history.  Human domination of the globe is also a phase of human history and needs to be examined and understood in this dimension too. This point was made in a terrific review of The Triumph of Human Empire that appeared yesterday in Times Higher Education.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off