Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

====== Readings from Smith and Clancy ======
In their chapter “Toys Were Us: Invention and Technological Acculturation in Hobbyist Worlds, 1900-1940,” Smith and Clancey argues that in the days of modern technical innovation and education, that boys and men were given a distinct advantage in the field not only in terms of college education, but also, in terms of play and casual exploration.

This advantage is evident in a number of magazines and articles from the turn of the 20th-century, as young boys were encouraged to experiment and explore with new technical hobbies in a way that girls were not. The “amateur” fields of science and technology, such as electricity, were fostered in male-dominated spheres (360). This provided boys with early advantages that allowed them to succeed disproportionately in the fields of technology and innovation, a disparity that is still evident today (358).

The technical training that was available to girls, such as that of the radio operator, lacked the “hobbyist” component that was common for boys (362). Girls training to be radio operators only received a few days training, and training was to be run in an efficient manner, similar to the way that women would perform “household duties” (363) Perfection and efficiency - not trial and error - was expected of girls and women.

Even almost a century later, with the invention and popularization of the computer, advertisements were still aimed at the parents of young boys - not girls. Nowadays, as we grapple with explaining the  “gender gap” in STEM fields, it is important to remember that this gap may not be the result of lack of interest in the field among girls, but rather, the result of over a century of early advantages given to boys. (==Glynnis Farleigh)

“Marconi and His Transatlantic Signal, 1902”
I found this story to be simply fascinating due to the process in which Marconi was able to freely experiment and pursue a project as grand as this. His wealth, education, and connections made it so simple for him to do as he pleased and if mistakes were made or obstacles were reached, he had the time and resources to retry and overcome time and time again. It makes me wonder just how much more influential technology may have emerged and existed today were there more people in similar positions as Marconi. It is also interesting to note the predictions for commercial application “marconigraphy” would have (I also wonder why that term didn’t last?). Many include military and exploratory purposes, and while that is still a major use today, radio as the common world knows it mostly involves news, music, and entertainment. - Dillyn Scott

When we read about scientific management a couple of weeks ago, I thought that it was kind of stupid. The examples that were given were for making a cake and doing household chores. Although when thinking about scientific management in an assembly line I start to understand more of the positive effects. The Colonial Radio Company used scientific management to produces a quality radio that was affordable.  Scientific management is a way to streamline production. It subtracts unwanted time to the overall production time. Thus making the process more efficient and being able to make more product because of the time difference. -- Erin Madden

====== Ruth Cowan, Social History of American Technology ======

In the Cowan reading, I found it interesting that it went into deeper detail about the word “technology.” Today it actually doesn’t have that long of a history. “Technology” in Europe during the 18th Century was used in its more literal idea, “knowledge of the arts.” This was more focused on the contents of the kind of handbook that was popular in the latter decades of the 18th Century. This was more along the lines of the craftsmen that had that knowledge and orally spoke it to their apprentices, with the apprentices writing it down so that anyone who was literate could learn from it. (pg. 203-204) – Hunter Dykhuis

It was so interesting reading about how the blood pressure cuff was invented. And to think that it all started with two doctors who had a little idea on how the fluid in the blood could effect the heart, and a lot of other parts of the body. It's funny how so many people were against using it for the longest time. Before this class I would never have thought that the blood pressure cuff is a piece of technology. It's cool to see how many things are considered technology that most people would never think of.- Lauren Blouch

Throughout “Social History of American Technology,” the aspect of technology was directly associated with different ideas. The ideas of “nature, gender, social status, politics, and skill” impacted how technology was shaped to conform to the world around it (217). Without these ideas, the industrial revolution would not have been possible. Without advancement in skills, technology would not continue to grow and change; it would plateau and stop advancing. All of these inventions, like bridges and steel, would not be possible without a level of “cultural meaning” (218). Objects and technologies cannot advance by itself; people need to. Be able to change these, so the world can keep moving and pushing forward. -Reilly Miller

Immediately after starting reading this article I was intrigued. Harvey Cushing and George Washington Crile created the Sphygmomanometer (try saying that fast) also known as the blood pressure cuff. It was filled with mercury which is scary. Knowing now what I know about that, I wish that we could have known. It is also interesting how we learn about these things. It takes a lot of trial and error and the blood pressure cuff was by far one of those things. -Haley Denehy

In “Ruth Cowan, Social History of American Technology,” she describes American society as “a biblical society,” (Cowan, pg. 205) and they interpret humanity’s purpose of dominating and subduing the Earth and all its non-human organisms and diverse environments as justification for the increasing industrialization and urbanization, believing that it is the will of Providence. As with many other things that we know now to not be so beneficial to all people, such as colonial/imperial expansion, enslavement, racial segregation, etc., people throughout time have tried to justify harm done to others or to Nature as the will of God, to deflect responsibility. – Rachel Beatty.

====== Nye, 133-137 ======

It's hard to know exactly which piece of technology is destined to succeed and which is set up for ultimate failure. The streetcar and the trolley both seemed like such essential pieces of technology that looking back it seemed almost impossible for their ultimate demise to have occurred. But occurred it did, and now both forms of transportation are relegated to activities for tourists in big cities. It's interesting to think that if things were allowed to run their course naturally, and not suffer from outside interference (such as those from greedy business men looking to turn a profit by quickly rendering current technology obsolete), then perhaps streets today would know only streetcars and trolleys, while the automobile would be seen as a passing fad from the early 20th century 
- Michael Dietrich

I like how they reference that the "automobile had created a glass cap between those who drove and those who rode." p.133. I had never thought of it in that sense. You are able to use that and visualize those who rode versus those who drove. They go on to explain the impact that Sinclair Lewis's George F Babbit had on the street car and his ideas led to the demise of it all together. Why was it this one person? Another point made is how trolleys became responsible for traffic jams, making the car dominant. It says on the beginning of page 137 that "writing about the streetcars are often nostalgic and makes little reference" to various things. Why do writers this information like this out? Why do they not talk about  the "strikes, racial confrontation, or urban life." (p.137) These trolleys and streetcars were an major invention and led to the modernization of cars now. It should be praised more rather than focus on the demise and abandonment. 
---- Erika Mabry

The introduction of the car made people uncertain of their technological advancements and which would prosper, the car or the streetcar? At the time, cars were seen as a commodity only the rich people could afford, so the vision of them taking over the streetcar was a hard reality the people weer going to face. Over time, the streetcars were blamed for over trafficking the streets even though they were the common form of transportation most people used in order to get from place to place. There were so many reasons as to why the automobile should fail during the 1920's and 1930's but it continued to prosper because of how fast it got people places and it took up less space while on the roads part because only the rich could afford them and because they were smaller than streetcars and horses.   
 -Kevin Bach

I thought it was interesting how cars separated classes and it was seen as a person having wealth.  Today everyone has a car, even if it’s an old and beat up car.  It’s just crazy to see how much this invention was so revolutionary and now it doesn’t really mean anything to be able to afford a car.  I mean this was a goal back then, to make more money so they could buy a car.  I also thought it was interesting that they were complaining about the trolley and how they caused issues but now they still use them in some cities or as tours for history towns.  It’s just think it’s funny how technology grows and fades and then eventually come back around. -- Claire Starke

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International