Revolutions are messy things, whether they’re either polit­i­cal or tech­no­log­i­cal. The first indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tion was pow­ered by coal and steam, but it was also pow­ered by slav­ery, col­o­niza­tion and child labor, which result­ed in cen­turies of social unrest. The upend­ing of tra­di­tion­al economies and tra­di­tion­al indus­tries cre­at­ed an envi­ron­men­tal impact that is still with us today.

One of the ways that indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tions are inter­est­ing to think about is that they look dif­fer­ent­ly depend­ing on how and where you see them from. They look dif­fer­ent whether you see them from Europe or Asia or Africa. But regard­less of time or place, econ­o­mists and his­to­ri­ans gen­er­al­ly tend to look at indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tions through the lens of inno­va­tion. And in my short talk today I want to encour­age a dif­fer­ent way of think­ing about this.

We can imag­ine think­ing about this as stand­ing very close to a sin­gle tree called the Tree of Innovation, if you will. And I want to encour­age us to move away from that tree, to step out­side the shad­ow of inno­va­tion, and to think about new per­spec­tives that one gets on indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tions by doing this. And I want to talk about three of these things.

Every year at the University of California, I teach an under­grad­u­ate class in the his­to­ry of tech­nol­o­gy. And at the start of the course I ask my stu­dents to com­plete a sen­tence. And that sen­tence is, Technology is…?” And the respons­es are fair­ly pre­dictable. To the aver­age twen­ty year-old, tech­nol­o­gy means cars and lap­tops and smart­phones. But hope­ful­ly by the end of the semes­ter, my stu­dents have got­ten a dif­fer­ent per­spec­tive on this and have come to appre­ci­ate that tech­nol­o­gy is more than just about stuff.

So for exam­ple, in the 19th cen­tu­ry, engi­neers and entre­pre­neurs cre­at­ed com­plex sys­tems of trans­porta­tion and com­mu­ni­ca­tion. But to make some­thing like what’s show­ing here work prop­er­ly required that it have order and reg­u­lar­i­ty. And in order to accom­plish this, this required adopt­ing scores of tech­ni­cal stan­dards. Technical stan­dards cre­at­ed sta­bil­i­ty in tech­no­log­i­cal sys­tems, whether it’s screws or ship­ping con­tain­ers, stan­dards are what make the nov­el into the mun­dane, and they’re what trans­form the local into the global.

Now, mak­ing stan­dards isn’t mak­ing things per se, but rather it’s about man­u­fac­tur­ing con­sen­sus about tech­nolo­gies. What they’re sup­posed to be, and how they will coor­di­nate and com­mu­ni­cate with one anoth­er. And if there’s going to be any sort of Fourth Industrial Revolution, then par­ties will have to adopt sim­i­lar tech­ni­cal stan­dards to make that work.

Now, indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tions don’t cre­ate just stan­dard­ized parts, they also cre­ate stan­dard­ized peo­ple. Here, for exam­ple, is an image from around 1920 show­ing a group of Ford work­ers, most of them recent immi­grants to the United States, hav­ing grad­u­at­ed from that com­pa­ny’s school. There they were taught the basis of a new cor­po­rate cul­ture, and for many of them they were taught the English lan­guage so they could com­mu­ni­cate with their coworkers. 

This process of mak­ing stan­dard­ized peo­ple is some­thing that we can think about as one of the hall­marks of the Industrial Revolution, as well. And this process was­n’t lim­it­ed to just blue col­lar work­ers. Professional cre­den­tials and shared research prac­tices fos­tered the rise of cor­po­rate research that was so essen­tial for indus­tri­al man­u­fac­tur­ing in the United States and Europe through­out the 20th cen­tu­ry. And this lega­cy is still with us now. Think about the num­bers that define us. Our school test scores, our cred­it reports, our actu­ar­i­al tables. As we go through our lives, our days lit­er­al­ly are in so many ways, numbered. 

These intan­gi­bles, if you will, stan­dards, quan­tifi­ca­tion, and ide­ol­o­gy of effi­cien­cy, these are part of the foun­da­tions of indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tions. And although tech­nol­o­gy isn’t just things, there is no deny­ing its mate­r­i­al basis. And that brings me to my sec­ond point. 

Over time tech­nolo­gies stack. They lay­er on top of one anoth­er. Their phys­i­cal­i­ty, their mate­r­i­al basis, set­tles on top and forms lay­ers that a geol­o­gist might appre­ci­ate, and which a his­to­ri­an can reveal and try to understand. 

So, con­sid­er this pic­ture. It was paint­ed in 1872. It’s called American Progress.” It’s a not-so-subtle image of the rep­re­sen­ta­tion of man­i­fest des­tiny. As Liberty glides forth across the North American con­ti­nent, set­tlers fol­low in her wake, and natives and nature are scat­tered before her.

But what’s inter­est­ing to me is that in her right hand, Liberty holds a tele­graph cable that she is unspool­ing along the path­way of an advanc­ing rail­way. So again, on one hand it’s a pic­ture of man­i­fest des­tiny, but in anoth­er way we can see this as an image of how inter­con­nect­ed the era’s trans­porta­tion and com­mu­ni­ca­tion sys­tems were. 

Here’s anoth­er way of think­ing about it. This is a map of one American rail­road com­pa­ny’s map of their rail­ways around 1890. And this is a map of the Internet from about a hun­dred years lat­er. Should we be sur­prised that these two lay­er on top of one another?

Or if we were to put a map of the elec­tri­cal grid, we would see a very sim­i­lar pat­tern. Or if we were to map air­mail routes on top of this, we would see a sim­i­lar pattern.

The point from this is that geog­ra­phy and the envi­ron­ment and the tech­nol­o­gy all mutu­al­ly shape one anoth­er. Technologies per­sist through time. But they also coexist with one anoth­er in very fas­ci­nat­ing sorts of ways. 

So, this is an image from late 19th cen­tu­ry Japan, and what I love about it is it shows a world in which rick­shaws and rail­roads and steam and sail all coex­ist­ed with one anoth­er. So we can think about indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tions as being dis­trib­uted unequal­ly in time and space. The tech­no­log­i­cal world isn’t flat. And we are still liv­ing in this lumpy and bumpy world as old and new tech­nolo­gies coex­ist with one anoth­er in time.

And what results from this is if we focus too much on the new, the nov­el, the inno­v­a­tive, we lose track of some of the old­er tech­nolo­gies that were in some ways more impor­tant and more foun­da­tion­al. So, it’s com­mon to hear about how the 19th cen­tu­ry tele­graph sys­tem was like today’s Internet. Except that this isn’t true. Sending a telegram in 1900 was very expen­sive. It was a one per­center tech­nol­o­gy, we might say. Not many peo­ple could afford to do it. What was rev­o­lu­tion­ary for the bulk of peo­ple who want­ed to trans­mit infor­ma­tion was the avail­abil­i­ty of cheap postage. Systems of transocean­ic and transcon­ti­nen­tal postage sys­tems allowed for the rapid flow of infor­ma­tion and cor­re­spon­dence. But in the shad­ow of nov­el­ty, things like cheap postage get lost in the shad­ow of the tele­graph, if you will.

Speaking of hid­den his­to­ries, recent­ly Walter Isaacson wrote a best-selling book called The Innovators. It’s a com­pelling sto­ry about how a group of geeky genius entre­pre­neurs and engi­neers formed col­lab­o­ra­tions and helped cre­ate the mod­ern dig­i­tal era. But a dif­fi­cul­ty with the book is that it miss­es the point of what most engi­neers and sci­en­tists actu­al­ly do. Most of them aren’t engaged in dis­rupt­ing exist­ing sys­tem. Most engi­neers and sci­en­tists spend their careers main­tain­ing sys­tems, main­tain­ing con­ti­nu­ity, keep­ing them functioning. 

So. Imagine a book, a hypo­thet­i­cal book. It’s called The Maintainers. What will we see in this hypo­thet­i­cal book? We would see a group of dif­fer­ent actors. We would­n’t see the same peo­ple who invent­ed the Web, for exam­ple. But we’d see the peo­ple who kept that sys­tem func­tion­ing. It would shift our gaze from Manchester and Silicon Valley and Detroit to wider glob­al infrastructure. 

It would be a sto­ry more about con­ti­nu­ity rather than change. In it, we would see activ­i­ties like the reuse, the recy­cling, the repair, some­times even the rejec­tion of tech­nol­o­gy. And in the process, peo­ple who had pre­vi­ous­ly been on the mar­gins would come into focus in this new and I think quite impor­tant story.

People like these folks. This is a farm cou­ple in Kansas dur­ing the Dust Bowl era around 1930. What have they done? They’ve tak­en their auto­mo­bile and they’ve con­nect­ed it to their wash­ing machine. We don’t real­ly know much about these peo­ple, but I would make the case that they were inven­tive and inno­v­a­tive in their own par­tic­u­lar ways. And it’s by focus­ing our his­to­ries on folks like these as well as the famous and the pow­er­ful that will cre­ate a rich tapes­try of under­stand­ing indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tions. We can think about peo­ple like these as hav­ing hacked the auto­mo­bile, if you will.

So, mov­ing away from the shad­ow of inno­va­tion gives us a rich­er his­to­ry about indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tions. We see how tech­nolo­gies per­sist over time. We see how tech­nol­o­gy is more than about just the stuff around us. And we see the impor­tant role that main­tain­ers and users have in fos­ter­ing inno­va­tion. We real­ize then that indus­tri­al rev­o­lu­tions and tech­nol­o­gy itself is more than just about sto­ries of inno­va­tion and progress. Technology as well as the social fab­ric that it is embed­ded in is itself a work in progress. 

Thank you very much.

Further Reference

A Mountain of Magical Thinking”, a follow-up/summary post about this pre­sen­ta­tion at Patrick McCray’s blog.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.