<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" ><generator uri="https://jekyllrb.com/" version="4.4.1">Jekyll</generator><link href="https://collopy.net/feed/research/capitalism.xml" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" /><link href="https://collopy.net/" rel="alternate" type="text/html" /><updated>2026-09-29T18:07:47-07:00</updated><id>https://collopy.net/feed/research/capitalism.xml</id><title type="html">Peter Sachs Collopy</title><author><name>Peter Sachs Collopy</name></author><entry><title type="html">The Evolution Debates</title><link href="https://collopy.net/teaching/2017/evolution/" rel="alternate" type="text/html" title="The Evolution Debates" /><published>2017-01-09T00:00:00-08:00</published><updated>2017-01-09T00:00:00-08:00</updated><id>https://collopy.net/teaching/2017/evolution</id><content type="html" xml:base="https://collopy.net/teaching/2017/evolution/"><![CDATA[<p>As the evolution of life generally and humanity in particular became scientific orthodoxy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, scientists and other intellectuals debated what this meant. Some conceptions of God were compatible with evolution and others were not, for example, but the inverse was also true: certain conceptions of evolution were compatible with God and others were not. And at the same time, some conceptions of evolution emphasized cooperation and suggested humans would achieve the happiest lives through socialism, while others emphasized the roles of competition and “survival of the fittest” and suggested that capitalism was a better system for human achievement. Some theories of human evolution justified white supremacy, while others suggested racial equality. As a result, debates about biology were often also debates about religion and politics, and the three fields were repeatedly re-formed together.</p>
<!--more-->
<p>This is a syllabus for The Evolution Debates, a course offered for four units of credit in spring 2017 as HIST 255g at the University of Southern California. This course will explore the history of ideas about evolution and human origins from about 1800 to the present. We’ll focus on debates and controversies, both within biology and geology and at intersections of science, religion, and politics, as well as famous incidents like Charles Darwin’s voyage on the Beagle and the Scopes Monkey Trial. More broadly, we’ll study the development of evolutionary theory, the histories of creationism and theistic evolutionism, and the roles of debates about human evolution’s political consequences in the histories of eugenics and scientific racism.</p>

<p>This is a General Education course in the category of Humanistic Inquiry. We’ll use the history of evolutionary thought to understand how scientists, theologians, and others have thought about what it means to be human and to live together in organized societies—and about how we became such social animals. In the process, we’ll interpret not only scientific texts for both professional and popular audiences, but also novels, visual art, film, and works of philosophy and theology. We’ll read carefully in order both to understand how arguments work and how the ideas of evolutionary thinkers have been shaped by the particular times, places, and experiences in which they lived, as well as by changing media and systems of publishing and scientific communication.</p>

<p>The course will meet for lectures on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday mornings, 9 to 9:50, from January 9 to April 28, in Von Kleinsmid Center room 102. I will be available for office hours on Mondays from 10:00 to 12:00 in Social Sciences Building room 281, and encourage you to come by and talk.</p>

<h3>Assignments</h3>

<p>This course is organized around substantial reading assignments of primary sources, which is to say texts written by biologists, geologists, philosophers, theologians, and other participants in the evolution debates. We’ll discuss readings during <!--both lecture and discussion sections-->every class, so please read everything assigned before the class meeting it’s listed under. Each week I will expect you post a short reaction to the reading by Sunday (or by Tuesday on weeks when the class doesn’t meet on Monday) using Blackboard’s blog feature. You can use this as an opportunity to raise questions, to comment on arguments you found particularly surprising or compelling, or to suggest ways the reading might relate to previous readings or forthcoming assignments.</p>

<p>You are required to buy two books, both of which are also available at the USC Bookstore. Please buy these specific editions, so we can refer to the same page numbers and editor’s notes:</p>
<ul>
	<li><cite><a href="http://greenlion.com/books/Darwin_GC.html">Selections from Darwin’s Origin of Species: The Shape of the Argument</a></cite>, edited by Nicholas Maistrellis, Green Cat Books edition (2009).</li>
	<li>H.G. Wells, <cite><a href="https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393927948">The Time Machine</a></cite>, edited by Stephen Arata, Norton Critical Edition (2008).</li>
</ul>

<p>All other required readings for the course will be available online; for the first half of the semester, we’ll mostly be reading texts available through the web repository <a href="https://www.hathitrust.org/">HathiTrust</a> (and linked to below). When we get to more recent texts, I’ll make scanned copies of the excerpts we’re reading available to you.</p>

<p>My lectures will provide historical context for these readings, introduce you to debates between historians about their significance, and describe the roles of historical figures beyond those whose work you’re reading. You’re therefore not required to read a textbook for the course, but if you’d like one to refer to or to follow along in for an additional perspective on this history, I’ve included page numbers below for relevant sections of Peter J. Bowler, <cite><a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/books/evolution-2/paper">Evolution: The History of an Idea</a></cite>, third edition (2003), which is available from the USC Bookstore and on reserve at Leavey Library’s circulation desk, and listed with them some other books for further reading or as sources for writing papers. Two other useful reference sources will be the <cite>Dictionary of Scientific Biography</cite> and the <cite><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/">Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</a></cite>, each of which is useful for finding introductory information on particular scientists and philosophers and citations for books and articles that provide more detailed information.</p>

<p>Your first substantial writing assignment, due February 10, will be a paper approximately five pages long in which you develop <a href="review">your own analysis of a review of <cite>The Origin of Species</cite></a>, contextualizing it in the life of its author, with attention to their other scientific, religious, political, and philosophical interests and commitments, and in the editorial agenda of the publication in which it appears. We’ll spend some time in class looking at different ways you might find such reviews and research their authors and publications.</p>

<p>Your second writing assignment, due April 7, will be an <a href="book">online exhibit on a particular book in the evolution debates as a material text</a>. In this exhibit, you’ll demonstrate what you can learn from looking at a physical book about its intended audience and how it was meant to be read. We’ll spend some time in class in advance of this assignment thinking about books in precisely this way, and will visit the USC Libraries’ Special Collections to look at original editions of books on evolution including some of those we’ve read ourselves. You’ll also have an opportunity to present the book you’re thinking about to the class on March 3.</p>

<p>Your last essay assignment, of approximately five pages and due April 28, will be to analyze what was at stake in a particular controversy about evolution. What did the people involved care about? What did they want to persuade others of? How did they use the idea of evolution to do so?</p>

<p>Additionally, there will be a midterm exam during class on March 10 and a final exam on May 5. These exams may involve short answer questions, longer essay questions, or a combination. In any case, the purpose will be more to evaluate your understanding of how ideas about evolution and its scientific, social, and religious consequences have changed over time, and less to test your memory of specific names or dates.</p>

<p>Your grade for the course will be based 15% on each of the two essays, 15% on the online exhibit, 15% on each of the two exams, 10% on reading responses, and 15% on your engaged and insightful participation in class.</p>


<h3 id="schedule">Schedule of Class Topics and Readings</h3>

<ul>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, January 9: What Are the Evolution Debates?</h5>
		<ul>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Peter J. Bowler, <cite>Evolution: The History of an Idea</cite>, third edition (2003), 1–26.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
</ul>

<h4 id="stable">Is Nature Stable or Changing?</h4>
<ul>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, January 11: The Great Chain of Being and the System of Nature <!--(29 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Charles Bonnet, <cite>The Contemplation of Nature</cite> (1764), translated and abridged in John Wesley, <cite>A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation</cite> (1777), <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t83j3c60t">volume 4</a>, 49–51, 58–62, 87–96.</li>
			<li>Carl Linnaeus, <cite>A General System of Nature</cite> (1735–1768), revised by Johann Friedrich Gmelin (1788–1793) and translated by William Turton (1800), <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ncs1.ark:/13960/t1fj2zn1z">volume 1</a>, 1–11.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 48–71; Arthur O. Lovejoy, <cite><a href="http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.05488.0001.001">The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea</a></cite> (1936); Michel Foucault, <cite>The Order of Things: An Archeology of the Human Sciences</cite> (1966; 1970); Londa Schiebinger, “<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2166840">Why Mammals Are Called Mammals: Gender Politics in Eighteenth-Century Natural History</a>” (1993).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, January 13: Evolution in an Age of Revolutions <!--(32 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044066262601">Zoological Philosophy</a></cite> (1809), translated by Hugh Elliot (1914), 1–8, 35–46, 68–70, 106–114.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 71–95; Adrian Desmond, <cite>The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London</cite> (1989).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, January 16: <i>No class for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day</i></h5>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, January 18: <i>No class</i></h5>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, January 20: Natural Theology <!--(62 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Thomas Malthus, <cite><a href="https://archive.org/details/essayonprinciple00malt_1">An Essay on the Principle of Population</a></cite> (1798), 11–17, 356–371.</li>
			<li>William Paley, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x001197535">Natural Theology</a></cite> (1802), 1–21, 454–459, 467–469, 473–481.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 96–106.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, January 23: Catastrophe and Uniformity <!--(39 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Georges Cuvier, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015032031943">Essay on the Theory of the Earth</a></cite> (1813), translated by Robert Kerr (1815), 5–17.</li>
			<li>Charles Lyell, <cite>Principles of Geology</cite>, <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433066370341">volume 1</a> (1830), 1–4; <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044103125563">volume 2</a> (1832), 18–32; <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433066370366">volume 3</a> (1833), 1–7.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 106–134; Charles Coulston Gillespie, <cite>Genesis and Geology: A Study in the Relations of Scientific Thought, Natural Theology, and Social Opinion in Great Britain, 1790–1850</cite> (1951); Martin S. Rudwick, <cite>Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Revolution</cite> (2005) and <cite>Worlds Before Adam: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform</a></cite> (2008).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, January 25: Popular Evolutionism <!--(48 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Robert Chambers, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044107245359">The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation</a></cite> (1844), 113–119, 145–147, 153–161, 174–178, and 268–291.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 134–140; James Secord, <cite>Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of <cite>Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation</cite></cite> (2000).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
</ul>

<h4 id="darwin">Darwin and Wallace’s Answers</h4>
<ul>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, January 27: The Voyages of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace <!--(10 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Charles Darwin, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015074623516">Journal and Remarks</a></cite> (1839), 453–457, 461–465.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 141–155; Janet Browne, <cite>Charles Darwin: Voyaging</cite> (1995).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, January 30: “One Long Argument” <!--(65 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Charles Darwin, <cite>On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection</cite> (1859), edited by Nicholas Maistrellis, Green Cat Books edition (2009), 5–7, 13–26, 31–42, 47–65, 71–77, 83–94, 99–105.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 155–176; Piers Hale, <cite>Political Descent: Malthus, Mutualism, and the Politics of Evolution in Victorian England</cite> (2014), 1–65; Janet Browne, <cite>Charles Darwin: The Power of Place</cite> (2002).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, February 1: The Reception of Darwinism</h5>
		<ul>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 177–202; Alvar Ellegård, <cite>Darwin and the General Reader: The Reception of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in the British Periodical Press, 1859–1872</cite> (1958); David L. Hull, <cite>Darwin and His Critics: The Reception of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by the Scientific Community</cite> (1973); <cite>The Comparative Reception of Darwinism</cite>, edited by Thomas F. Glick (1974); <cite>Disseminating Darwinism: The Role of Place, Race, Religion, and Gender</cite>, edited by Ronald L. Numbers and John Stenhouse (1999); <cite>The Reception of Charles Darwin in Europe</cite>, edited by Eve-Marie Engels and Thomas F. Glick (2008).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, February 3: <i>Introduction to Special Collections</i></h5>
		<ul>	
			<li><i>Meet in <a href="https://libraries.usc.edu/locations/special-collections">USC Special Collections</a>, Doheny Memorial Library room 206.</i></li>
		</ul>
	</li>
</ul>

<h4 id="atheistic">Is Darwinism Atheistic?</h4>
<ul>
	<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 202–207; James Moore, <cite>The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870–1900</cite> (1979); Jon H. Roberts, <cite>Darwinism and the Divine in America: Protestant Intellectuals and Organic Evolution, 1859–1900</cite> (1988).</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, February 6: Anti-Evolutionism <!--(24 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>	
			<li>Charles Hodge, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044019200393">What Is Darwinism?</a></cite> (1874), 1–2, 40–48, 52–53, 168–178.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, February 8: Christian Darwinism <!--(29 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>George Frederick Wright, “<a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015074659486;seq=371">Concerning the True Doctrine of Final Cause or Design in Nature</a>,” <cite>Bibliotheca Sacra</cite> 34 (1877): 357–385.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, February 10: <i>The Evolution Debates in Special Collections</i></h5>
		<ul>
			<li><i>Meet in USC Special Collections.</i></li>
			<li><i>Paper due <a href="review">contextualizing a review of <cite>The Origin of Species</cite></a>.</i></li>
		</ul>
	</li>
</ul>

<h4 id="humans">How Did Humans Evolve?</h4>
<ul>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, February 13: Monogenism and Polygenism <!--(36 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Louis Agassiz, “<a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433081670469;seq=118">The Diversity of Origin of the Human Races</a>,” <cite>Christian Examiner</cite> 49 (1850): 110–113, 126–128, 136–138, 141–145.</li>
			<li>Frederick Douglass, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.69015000002739">The Claims of the Negro, Ethnologically Considered</a></cite> (1854), 9–10, 12–18, 34–35.</li>
			<li>Charles Darwin, <cite>The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex</cite> (1871), <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435064734387">volume 1</a>, 9–10, 220–227.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 207–216, 292–297.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, February 15: Sexual Selection <!--(31 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Darwin, <cite>Descent of Man</cite>, <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435064734387">volume 1</a>, 245–251, 263–266; <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hw2p3s">volume 2</a>, 301–302, 310–314.</li>
			<li>Eliza Burt Gamble, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.rslxyf">The Evolution of Woman</a></cite> (1894), 19–31.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 313–315; Hale, <cite>Political Descent</cite>, 106–154; Cynthia Eagle Russett, <cite>Sexual Science: The Victorian Construction of Womanhood</cite> (1989); Kimberly A. Hamlin, <cite>From Eve to Evolution: Darwin, Science, and Women’s Rights in Gilded Age America</cite> (2014).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, February 17: Herbert Spencer’s Universal Evolutionism <!--(29 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Herbert Spencer, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044014674535">First Principles</a></cite> (1862), 146–174. (An earlier version of this chapter, “<a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158008177155;seq=254">Progress: Its Law and Cause</a>,” <cite>Westminster Review</cite> 67 (1857), is also available.)</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 220–223; Mark Francis, <cite>Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life</cite> (2007); <cite>Global Spencerism: The Communication and Appropriation of a British Evolutionist</cite>, edited by Bernard Lightman (2015).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, February 20: <i>No class for Presidents Day</i></h5>
	</li>
</ul>

<h4 id="politics">The Politics of Evolution: Competitive or Cooperative?</h4>
<ul>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, February 22: Individualism <!--(30 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Herbert Spencer, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044011566569">Social Statics</a></cite> (1851), 16–38.</li>
			<li>Herbert Spencer, <cite>The Principles of Biology</cite> (1864), <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044009912734">volume 1</a>, 443–445.</li>
			<li>Herbert Spencer, <cite>The Principles of Sociology</cite>, <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.ah5dvt">volume 3</a> (1896), 608–611.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 274–277, 298–302; Hale, <cite>Political Descent</cite>, 66–105.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, February 24: Liberalism <!--(20 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Thomas Henry Huxley, “<a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101065273508;seq=171">The Struggle for Existence: A Programme</a>,” <cite>Nineteenth Century</cite>, February 1888, 161–180.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 216–220; Hale, <cite>Political Descent</cite>, 155–221.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, February 27: Socialism <!--(25 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Peter Kropotkin, “Mutual Aid Among Animals,” <cite>Nineteenth Century</cite>, <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101065273474;seq=351">September 1890</a>, 337–349, 354; <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101065273474;seq=712">November 1890</a>, 709–719.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 305–307, 315–317; Hale, <cite>Political Descent</cite>, 222–251; Daniel Todes, <cite>Darwin Without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought</cite> (1989).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, March 1: Communism <!--(26 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Lewis Henry Morgan, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044011479847">Ancient Society</a></cite> (1877), 3–18, 551–554.</li>
			<li>Frederick Engels, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024944756">The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State</a></cite> (1884), translated by Ernest Untermann (1902), 102–103, 116–119.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 284–292.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, March 3: <i>Presentations on Special Collections</i></h5>
		<ul>
			<li><i>Meet in USC Special Collections.</i></li>
		</ul>
	</li>
</ul>

<h4 id="eclipse">The Eclipse of Darwinism: What Are the Mechanisms of Evolution?</h4>
<ul>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, March 6: Neo-Darwinism and Neo-Lamarckism <!--(27 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Ernst Haeckel, <cite>The History of Creation</cite> (1868), translated by Edwin Ray Lankester (1876), <a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000041570254">volume 1</a>, 280–292.</li>
			<li>Edwin Ray Lankester, <cite>Degeneration: A Chapter in Darwinism</cite> (1880), excerpted in H.G. Wells, <cite>The Time Machine</cite> (1895), edited by Stephen Arata, Norton Critical Edition (2008), 160–163.</li>
			<li>H.G. Wells, “Zoological Retrogression” (1891), excerpted in Wells, <cite>Time Machine</cite>, 133–135.</li>
			<li>August Weismann, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hc4pef">The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity</a></cite> (1892), translated by W. Newton Parker and Harriet R&ouml;nnfeldt (1893), ix–xv.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 224–256; Hale, <cite>Political Descent</cite>, 252–353; Peter J. Bowler, <cite>The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900</cite> (1983).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, March 8: “The Deathbed of Darwinism”? <!--(36 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Alexander Patterson, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015028720707">The Other Side of Evolution</a></cite> (1903), vii–xix, 120–136.</li>
			<li>Vernon Kellogg, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b572418">Darwinism To-Day</a></cite> (1907), 1–7.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Ronald L. Numbers, <cite>The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design</cite> (1992; 2006).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, March 10: <i>Midterm exam</i></h5>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>March 12–19: <i>No class for spring break</i></h5>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, March 20: Evolutionary Fiction <!--(71 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>H.G. Wells, <cite>Time Machine</cite> (1895), 1–71.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, March 22: Genetics and Eugenics <!--(27 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Francis Galton, “<a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b676997;view=2up;seq=168">Hereditary Talent and Character</a>,” <cite>Macmillan’s Magazine</cite>, June 1865, 157–166.</li>
			<li>William Bateson, “<a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00400715m;seq=64">Problems of Heredity as a Subject for Horticultural Investigation</a>,” <cite>Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society</cite> 25 (1900): 54–61.</li>
			<li>Charles Davenport, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hc19hh">Heredity in Relation to Eugenics</a></cite> (1911), iii–vi, 1–5.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 256–273, 307–313; Diane Paul, <cite>Controlling Human Heredity, 1865 to the Present</cite> (1995).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, March 24: <i>No class</i></h5>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, March 27: Creative Evolution <!--(55 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Henri Bergson, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044021581178">Creative Evolution</a></cite> (1907), translated by Arthur Mitchell (1911), ix–xv, 84–97, 163–165, 176–185, 251–271.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 317–322; R. C. Grogin, <cite>The Bergsonian Controversy in France, 1900–1914</cite> (1988).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, March 29: The Scopes Monkey Trial and the Revival of Creationism <!--(27 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>William Jennings Bryan, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015026299282">In His Image</a></cite> (1922), 86–94, 102–109, 122–127, 132–135.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 375–381; Numbers, <cite>Creationists</cite>; Edward J. Larson, <cite><a href="http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.00666.0001.001">Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion</a></cite> (1997); Adam R. Shapiro, <cite>Trying Biology: The Scopes Trial, Textbooks, and the Antievolution Movement in American Schools</cite> (2013).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
</ul>

<h4 id="synthesis">The Evolutionary Synthesis: Is Evolution Progressive?</h4>
<ul>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, March 31: Population Genetics and the Modern Synthesis <!--(17 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>R.A. Fisher, <cite><a href="https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.27468">The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection</a></cite> (1930), vii–x, 256–258.</li>
			<li>Theodosius Dobzhansky, <cite>Genetics and the Origin of Species</cite> (1937), 3–12.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 325–340; Vassiliki Betty Smokovitis, <cite>Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology</cite> (1996); Robert D. Kohler, <cite>Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life</cite> (1994).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, April 3: Evolutionary Progress <!--(30 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Julian Huxley, <cite>Evolution: The Modern Synthesis</cite> (1942), 556–569, 575–578.</li> <!--Pages missing from scan-->
			<li>George Gaylord Simpson, <cite>The Meaning of Evolution</cite> (1949), 240–246.</li>
			<li>George Gaylord Simpson, “<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970168">The Concept of Progress in Organic Evolution</a>,” <cite>Social Research</cite> 41 (1974): 46–51.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 340–346; Michael Ruse, <cite>Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology</cite> (1996).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, April 5: The Teilhardian Synthesis <!--(68 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, <cite>The Phenomenon of Man</cite> (1938/1955), translated by Bernard Wall (1959), 11–14, 27–28, 180–184, 237–245, 257–272, 291–299.</li>
			<li>Peter Medawar, <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2252158">review of <cite>The Phenomenon of Man</cite></a>, <cite>Mind</cite> 70 (1961): 99–106.</li>
			<li>Theodosius Dobzhansky, <cite>The Biology of Ultimate Concern</cite> (1967), 114–122, 133–137.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, April 7: <i>No class</i></h5>
		<ul>
			<li><i>Online exhibit due <a href="book">on an evolutionary book as a material text</a>.</i></li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, April 10: Scientific Creationism <!--(22 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, <cite>The Genesis Flood</cite> (1961), xix–xxii, xxv–xxix, 63–70.</li>
			<li>Theodosius Dobzhansky, “<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/4444260">Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution</a>,” <cite>American Biology Teacher</cite> 35 (1973): 125–129.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Numbers, <cite>Creationists</cite>.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, April 12: The Evolution of Human Race <!--(34 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Carleton Putnam, <cite><a href="https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b3365886">Race and Reason: A Yankee View</a></cite> (1961), vii–viii, 1, 36–37, 40–41.</li>
			<li>Theodosius Dobzhansky, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a107063">A Bogus ‘Science’ of Race Prejudice</a>,” <cite>Journal of Heredity</cite> 52 (1961): 189–190.</li>
			<li>Theodosius Dobzhansky, <cite>Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species</cite> (1962), 253–257, 266–271, 285–286.</li>
			<li>Theodosius Dobzhansky, “A Debatable Account of the Origin of Races,” <cite>Scientific American</cite>, February 1963, 169–170, 172.</li>
			<li>Richard Lewontin, “The Apportionment of Human Diversity,” <cite>Evolutionary Biology</cite> 6 (1972): 381–387, 396–397.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 278–284, 302–305, 353–356; Lee D. Baker, <cite>From Savage to Negro: Anthropology and the Construction of Race, 1896–1954</cite> (1998); John P. Jackson, Jr., <cite>Science for Segregation: Race, Law, and the Case against Brown v. Board of Education</cite> (2005).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, April 14: Periodic Extinctions and Punctuated Equilibria <!--(30 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Niles Eldridge, “‘A Battle of Words,’” in <cite>The Third Culture</cite>, edited by John Brockman (1995), 120–125.</li>
			<li>Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould, “<a href="http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf">Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism</a>,” in <cite>Models in Paleobiology</cite>, edited by Thomas J.M. Schopf (1972), 83–98, 108–115.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 347–353; David Sepkoski, <cite>Rereading the Fossil Record: The Growth of Paleobiology as an Evolutionary Discipline</cite> (2012).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
</ul>

<h4 id="adaptationism">Adaptationism: Does Natural Selection Explain All Traits?</h4>
<ul>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, April 17: Biology as an Information Science <!--(32 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>George C. Williams, “‘A Package of Information,’” in Brockman, <cite>Third Culture</cite>, 39–47.</li>
			<li>Richard Dawkins, <cite>The Selfish Gene</cite> (1976), 1–11.</li>
			<li>Richard Dawkins, “‘A Survival Machine,’” in Brockman, <cite>Third Culture</cite>, 75–86.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 356–361.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, April 19: Sociobiology <!--(22 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>E.O. Wilson, <cite>Sociobiology</cite> (1975), 3–6, 547–551, 559–565, 574–575.</li>
			<li>Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People, “<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1297246">Sociobiology: Another Biological Determinism</a>,” <cite>BioScience</cite> 26 (1976): 182, 184–186.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, April 21: The Descent of Woman <!--(39 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Elaine Morgan, <cite>The Descent of Woman</cite> (1972), 1–13, 26–33.</li>
			<li>Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, <cite>The Woman That Never Evolved</cite> (1981), 1–15, 189–191.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Donna Haraway, <cite>Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science</cite> (1989); Erika Lorraine Milam, <cite>Looking for a Few Good Males: Female Choice in Evolutionary Biology</cite> (2010).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Monday, April 24: Critiques of Adaptationism <!--(30 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Stephen Jay Gould, “‘The Pattern of Life’s History,’” in Brockman, <cite>Third Culture</cite>, 52–64.</li>
			<li>Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin, “<a href="http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/gould.pdf">The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm</a>,” <cite>Proceedings of the Royal Society of London</cite> 205 (1979): 581–597.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Bowler, <cite>Evolution</cite>, 361–374.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Wednesday, April 26: The Revival of Natural Theology <!--(47 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Richard Dawkins, <cite>The Blind Watchmaker</cite> (1986), 1–9.</li>
			<li>William A. Dembski, “The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design,” in <cite>Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA</cite>, edited by William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse (2004), 311–329.</li>
			<li>Michael J. Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” in Dembski and Ruse, <cite>Debating Design</cite>, 352–355.</li>
			<li>Kenneth R. Miller, “The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of ‘Irreducible Complexity,’” in Dembski and Ruse, <cite>Debating Design</cite>, 81–95.</li>
			<li class="reference">Reference: Numbers, <cite>Creationists</cite>.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, April 28: Symbiogenesis <!--(41 pages)--></h5>
		<ul>
			<li>Lynn Margulis, “‘Gaia Is a Tough Bitch,’” in Brockman, <cite>Third Culture</cite>, 130–140.</li>
			<li>Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, <cite>Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species</cite> (2002), xi–xvi, 11–23, 51–56, 201–205.</li>
			<li><i>Paper due analyzing the stakes of a particular evolution controversy.</i></li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h5>Friday, May 5: <i>Final exam from 8:00 to 10:00</i></h5>
	</li>
</ul>]]></content><author><name>Peter Sachs Collopy</name></author><category term="teaching" /><category term="biology" /><category term="religion" /><category term="evolution" /><category term="science" /><category term="Christianity" /><category term="geology" /><category term="politics" /><category term="human sciences" /><category term="philosophy" /><category term="white supremacy" /><category term="anarchism" /><category term="capitalism" /><category term="communism" /><category term="conservatism" /><category term="liberalism" /><category term="eugenics" /><summary type="html"><![CDATA[As the evolution of life generally and humanity in particular became scientific orthodoxy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, scientists and other intellectuals debated what this meant. Some conceptions of God were compatible with evolution and others were not, for example, but the inverse was also true: certain conceptions of evolution were compatible with God and others were not. And at the same time, some conceptions of evolution emphasized cooperation and suggested humans would achieve the happiest lives through socialism, while others emphasized the roles of competition and “survival of the fittest” and suggested that capitalism was a better system for human achievement. Some theories of human evolution justified white supremacy, while others suggested racial equality. As a result, debates about biology were often also debates about religion and politics, and the three fields were repeatedly re-formed together.]]></summary></entry><entry><title type="html">America and the Cold War World, 1945–1991</title><link href="https://collopy.net/teaching/2016/coldwar/" rel="alternate" type="text/html" title="America and the Cold War World, 1945–1991" /><published>2016-08-25T00:00:00-07:00</published><updated>2016-08-25T00:00:00-07:00</updated><id>https://collopy.net/teaching/2016/coldwar</id><content type="html" xml:base="https://collopy.net/teaching/2016/coldwar/"><![CDATA[<p>This is a syllabus for America in the Cold War World, 1945–1991, a course offered in fall 2016 as HIST 465 at the University of Southern California. This is a course on the political and cultural history of the United States in its global context. We’ll seek to understand how the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union shaped how Americans lived their lives and exercised power, paying particular attention to American science, technology, media, popular culture, and family life, as well as to Americans’ engagements with the rest of the world.</p>
<!--more-->
<p>The course will meet on Thursday afternoons, 2:00 to 4:50, from August 25 to December 1 in Verna and Peter Dauterive Hall room 107. It will be a discussion-based seminar, though I will punctuate it with occasional presentations. I will be available for office hours on Wednesdays from 3:00 to 5:00 in Social Sciences Building room 281, and encourage you to come by and talk.</p>

<h3>Assignments</h3>

<p>As a seminar, this course is primarily based on learning by discussing the required readings (listed below), so it’s essential that you read and think about them before each class meeting. Each week I will expect you post a short reaction to the reading the day before class using Blackboard’s blog feature. You can use this as an opportunity to raise questions, to comment on arguments you found particularly surprising or compelling, or to suggest ways the reading might relate to previous readings or forthcoming assignments.</p>

<p>Your first larger assignment will be to develop your own analysis of <a href="film">a film</a> in the context of the Cold War, and to present it in a short paper of about five pages. Your second assignment will be a contribution to an online exhibit on America in the Cold War that we’ll produce together as a class. A final assignment will require you to develop your own historical analysis of an event, person, or cultural or political phenomenon, and to present an argument about how your subject shaped, and was shaped by, America in the Cold War world. That final project, which may build on your work for either of the earlier two assignments, may take the form of a traditional research paper of 15–20 pages, or you may speak with me about presenting it in another medium; in either case, you will have the opportunities to get feedback on a short proposal and a brief presentation as you work on your project. Your grade for the course will be based 20% on your film analysis, 20% on your contribution to the online guide, 30% on your final project, and 30% on your reading responses and engaged and insightful participation in discussions.</p>

<h3>Reading</h3>
<p>Please purchase the following three books, or plan to borrow them from Leavey Library’s circulation desk, where they will be on reserve. The first two are available at the <a href="https://uscbookstore.com/">USC Bookstores</a>; <cite>The Culture of the Cold War</cite> is out of print, so please seek out a used or library copy.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Robert J. McMahon, <cite>The Cold War: A Very Short Introduction</cite> (2003).</li>
	<li>Jeremi Suri, <cite>Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Detente</cite> (2003).</li>
	<li>Stephen J. Whitfield, <cite>The Culture of the Cold War</cite>, second edition (1996, revised from 1991 original).</li>
</ul>

<p>All other readings will be available through links below. If you prefer print to reading off a screen, though, you may still want to buy or borrow a few more books. The ones we’ll be reading substantial chunks of, which will also be available on reserve at Leavey, include:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Thomas Borstelmann, <cite>The Cold War and the Color Line: American Race Relations in the Global Arena</cite> (2001).</li>
	<li>Michael D. Gordin, <cite>Five Days in August: How World War II Became a Nuclear War</cite> (2007).</li>
	<li>Van Gosse, <cite><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4039-8014-4">Rethinking the New Left: An Interpretive History</a></cite> (2005).</li>
	<li>Elaine Tyler May, <cite>Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era</cite>, revised edition (2008, revised from 1988 original).</li>
	<li>Lisa McGirr, <cite><a href="http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.02237.0001.001">Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right</a></cite> (2002).</li>
	<li>Odd Arne Westad, <cite>The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times</cite> (2005).</li>
</ul>

<p class="box">Boxes like this one contain suggestions for additional reading. You might want to read beyond the assigned reading based on your curiosity, as research for an assignment, or ideally for both reasons, as you use an assignment to pursue your own interests.</p>


<h3>Schedule</h3>
<ul>
	<li>
		<h4>August 25: Introduction</h4>
		<ul>
			<li><i>In class:</i> George Orwell, “<a href="http://orwell.ru/library/articles/ABomb/english/e_abomb">You and the Atomic Bomb</a>” (1945), Harry Truman, “<a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/truman-hiroshima/">Statement by the President of the United States</a>” (1945), and Stanley Kubrick, <cite>Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb</cite> (1964).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>September 1: The Atomic Age <!--(148 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Eric Schlosser, “<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything-in-dr-strangelove-was-true">Almost Everything in <cite>Dr. Strangelove</cite> Was True</a>,” <cite>New Yorker</cite> (2014).</li>
			<li>Michael D. Gordin, <cite><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt163tcm5">Five Days in August: How World War II Became a Nuclear War</a></cite> (2007), chapters 1, 3, and 6–7.</li>
			<li>Naomi Oreskes, “<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qf6k8.5">Science in the Origins of the Cold War</a>,” in <cite>Science and Technology in the Global Cold War</cite>, edited by Naomi Oreskes and John Krige (2014).</li>
			<li>Paul Boyer, <cite>By the Bomb’s Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age</cite> (1985), chapters 1 and 26–27, and epilogue.</li>
			<li class="box">For more on Cold War science, see Audra J. Wolfe, <cite>Competing with the Soviets: Science, Technology, and the State in Cold War America</cite> (2013) and its bibliography. On nuclear weapons in the context of the U.S. military, see Eric Schlosser, <cite>Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety</cite> (2013), and Alex Wellerstein’s blog <a href="http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/">Restricted Data</a>.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>September 8: Soviet and American Systems <!--(129 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Robert J. McMahon, <cite>The Cold War: A Very Short Introduction</cite> (2003), chapters 1–2.</li>
			<li>Odd Arne Westad, <cite>The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times</cite> (2005), introduction and chapters 1–2.</li>
			<li>Raymond Williams, “Capitalism,” “Communism,” “Democracy,” “Imperialism,” “Liberal,” and “Socialist,” in <cite>Keywords: A Vocabulary for Culture and Society</cite>, revised edition (1983, revised from 1976 original).</li>
			<li>David F. Ruccio, “<a href="http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/nyupacs/capitalism/">Capitalism</a>,” in <cite>Keywords for American Cultural Studies</cite>, edited by Bruce Burgett and Glenn Hendler (2014).</li>
			<li>Nikhil Pal Singh, “<a href="http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/nyupacs/liberalism/">Liberalism</a>,” in Burgett and Hendler, <cite>Keywords for American Cultural Studies</cite>.</li>
            <li class="box">John Lewis Gaddis, <cite>The Cold War: A New History</cite> (2005) is a standard history of the Cold War as a bipolar conflict. <cite><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/series/cambridge-history-of-the-cold-war/DEFB061DD8FD3DA500549912A13F03CE">The Cambridge History of the Cold War</a></cite>, edited by Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad (2010), is an extensive, three-volume collection of essays. For more on the cultural Cold War, see Audra J. Wolfe’s <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160314004755/http://backlist.cc/lists/cultural-cold-war">introductory bibliography</a>.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>September 15: Anticommunism and the Domestic Cold War <!--(150 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Stephen J. Whitfield, <cite>The Culture of the Cold War</cite>, second edition (1996, revised from 1991 original), chapters 1–2, 4, 6, and 8–9.</li>
			<li class="box">Starting places for additional reading include Ellen Schrecker, <cite>Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America</cite> (1998); Thomas Doherty, <cite>Cold War, Cool Medium: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture</cite> (2003); and David K. Johnson, <cite>The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government</cite> (2004).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>September 22: Nuclear Families <!--(144 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Kenneth T. Jackson, <cite>Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States</cite> (1985), chapters 13–14.</li>
			<li>Elaine Tyler May, <cite>Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era</cite>, revised edition (2008, revised from 1988 original), introduction and chapters 1, 4, and 6–7.</li>
			<li class="box">For more on redlining and segregation, see chapter 11 of <cite>Crabgrass Frontier</cite> and Ta-Nehisi Coates, “<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/">The Case for Reparations</a>” (2014). Ta-Nehisi Coates, “<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/home-is-where-the-hatred-is/373510/">Home is Where the Hatred Is</a>” (2014) is a bibliography. On how experts changed cities during the Cold War, see Jennifer S. Light, <cite>From Warfare to Welfare: Defense Intellectuals and Urban Problems in Cold War America</cite> (2003).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li class="newmodule">
		<h4>September 29: The Global Cold War <!--(149 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>McMahon, <cite>Cold War</cite>, chapters 3–5.</li>
			<li>Westad, <cite>Global Cold War</cite>, chapter 3.</li>
			<li>Greg Grandin, <cite>The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War</cite> (2004), preface and introduction.</li>
			<li>Jacob Darwin Hamblin, <cite>Arming Mother Nature: The Birth of Catastrophic Environmentalism</cite> (2013), chapter 6.</li>
			<li class="box">There are many directions to go for additional reading, but for samples of recent essays see <cite>Environmental Histories of the Cold War</cite>, edited by J. R. McNeill and Corinna R. Unger (2010), and <cite>The Cold War in the Third World</cite>, edited by Robert J. McMahon (2013). The Korean War is conspicuously absent from cultural histories of the Cold War, but for diplomatic and military history see Bruce Cumings, <cite>The Korean War: A History</cite> (2010); Wada Haruki, <cite>The Korean War: An International History</cite>, translated by Frank Baldwin (2014); and Allan R. Millett, <cite>The Korean War</cite>, The Essential Bibliography Series (2007).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>Monday, October 3: Paper due <a href="film">contextualizing a film</a></h4>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>October 6: Black Liberation Movements I <!--(136 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Thomas Borstelmann, <cite>The Cold War and the Color Line: American Race Relations in the Global Arena</cite> (2001), prologue and chapters 2–4.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>October 13: Black Liberation Movements II <!--(147 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Borstelmann, <cite>Cold War and the Color Line</cite>, chapters 5–6, and epilogue.</li>
			<li>Van Gosse, <cite><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4039-8014-4">Rethinking the New Left: An Interpretive History</a></cite> (2005), chapter 9.</li>
			<li>Ryan J. Kirkby, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1353/crv.2011.0001">‘The Revolution Will Not Be Televised’: Community Activism and the Black Panther Party, 1966–1971</a>,” <cite>Canadian Review of American Studies</cite> (2011).</li>
			<li class="box">Chapters 4 and 9 of <a href="http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-4039-8014-4%2F1.pdf">the bibliography of <cite>Rethinking the New Left</cite></a> are important starting points for further reading, as is the <a href="http://www.aaihs.org/blackpanthersyllabus/">#blackpanthersyllabus</a>, compiled by Keisha N. Blain, Ashley Farmer, and Dara Vance (2016). Joshua Bloom and Waldo E. Martin, Jr., <cite>Black Against Empire: The History and Politics of the Black Panther Party</cite> (2012) is a detailed narrative history of the BPP.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4 class="newpage">October 20: The Vietnam War <!--(154 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Jeremi Suri, <cite>Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Detente</cite> (2003), introduction and chapters 4–5.</li>
			<li>Christian G. Appy, <cite>American Reckoning: The Vietnam War and Our National Identity</cite> (2015), introduction and chapter 5.</li>
			<li>Gosse, <cite><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4039-8014-4">Rethinking the New Left</a></cite>, chapter 8.</li>
			<li class="box">Even without leaving campus you can find hundreds of books on the Vietnam War, as you can see for yourself by browsing DS557 to DS559 in Doheny Library. Starting places for further reading include the rest of <cite>American Reckoning</cite>; Mark Atwood Lawrence, <cite>The Vietnam War: A Concise International History</cite> (2008); and <cite>A Vietnam War Reader: A Documentary History from American and Vietnamese Perspectives</cite>, edited by Michael H. Hunt (2010).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>October 27: Detente and New Radicalisms <!--(154 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>McMahon, <cite>Cold War</cite>, chapter 7.</li>
			<li>Suri, <cite>Power and Protest</cite>, chapter 6 and conclusion.</li>
			<li>Gosse, <cite><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4039-8014-4">Rethinking the New Left</a></cite>, chapters 10–13.</li>
			<li class="box">Again, <a href="http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-4039-8014-4%2F1.pdf">the bibliography of <cite>Rethinking the New Left</cite></a> is a good starting point for further reading.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>Monday, October 31: Contribution due to <a href="http://coldwar.collopy.net/exhibits/show/assignment/assignment1">online exhibit</a></h4>
	</li>
	<li class="newmodule">
		<h4>November 3: New Conservatisms I <!--(150 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Lisa McGirr, <cite><a href="http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.02237.0001.001">Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right</a></cite> (2002), introduction and chapters 2–4.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>November 10: New Conservatisms II <!--(142 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>McGirr, <cite><a href="http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.02237.0001.001">Suburban Warriors</a></cite>, chapters 5–6, and epilogue.</li>
			<li>Corey Robin, <cite>The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin</cite> (2011), pages 3–17.</li>
			<li>Daniel T. Rodgers, <cite>Age of Fracture</cite> (2011), prologue and chapter 1.</li>
			<li class="box">Other starting places for reading on Cold War conservatism include Rick Perlstein’s trilogy <cite>Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus</cite> (2001), <cite>Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America</cite> (2008), and <cite>The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan</cite> (2014), as well as <a href="http://www.publicbooks.org/feature/trump-syllabus-20">Trump Syllabus 2.0</a>, compiled by N. D. B. Connolly and Keisha N. Blain (2016), and Sean Wilentz, <cite>The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974–2008</cite> (2008).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>Monday, November 14: Final project proposal due</h4>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>November 17: Ends of the Cold War and Beyond <!--(139 pages)--></h4>
		<ul>
			<li>McMahon, <cite>Cold War</cite>, chapter 8.</li>
			<li>Francis Fukuyama, “<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/24027184">The End of History?</a>” <cite>National Interest</cite>, Summer 1989.</li>
			<li>John Lewis Gaddis, <cite>We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History</cite> (1997), chapter 10.</li>
			<li>Jon Wiener, <cite>How We Forgot the Cold War: A Historical Journey across America</cite> (2012), introduction, chapters 1 and 21, conclusion, and epilogue.</li>
			<li>Appy, <cite>American Reckoning</cite>, chapter 11.</li>
			<li class="box">Few historians have yet written extensively about the 1980s and beyond, though <cite>Age of Fracture</cite> and <cite>The Age of Reagan</cite> are important exceptions. For more historiography of the Cold War, see <cite>Cold War Triumphalism: The Misuse of History after the Fall of Communism</cite>, edited by Ellen Schrecker (2004), and <cite>Uncertain Empire: American History and the Idea of the Cold War</cite>, edited by Joel Isaac and Duncan Bell (2012).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>November 24: <i>No class for Thanksgiving</i></h4>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>December 1: Final project presentations</h4>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>December 8: Final project due</h4>
	</li>
</ul>]]></content><author><name>Peter Sachs Collopy</name></author><category term="teaching" /><category term="war" /><category term="politics" /><category term="conservatism" /><category term="liberalism" /><category term="communism" /><category term="capitalism" /><category term="white supremacy" /><summary type="html"><![CDATA[This is a syllabus for America in the Cold War World, 1945–1991, a course offered in fall 2016 as HIST 465 at the University of Southern California. This is a course on the political and cultural history of the United States in its global context. We’ll seek to understand how the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union shaped how Americans lived their lives and exercised power, paying particular attention to American science, technology, media, popular culture, and family life, as well as to Americans’ engagements with the rest of the world.]]></summary></entry><entry><title type="html">Technology and Society</title><link href="https://collopy.net/teaching/2014/technology/" rel="alternate" type="text/html" title="Technology and Society" /><published>2014-09-02T00:00:00-07:00</published><updated>2014-09-02T00:00:00-07:00</updated><id>https://collopy.net/teaching/2014/technology</id><content type="html" xml:base="https://collopy.net/teaching/2014/technology/"><![CDATA[<p>This is a syllabus for Technology and Society (STSC/HSOC 003), a course offered in fall 2014 at the University of Pennsylvania. Technology plays an increasing role in our understandings of ourselves, our communities, and our societies, in how we think about politics and war, science and religion, work and play. Humans have made and used technologies, though, for thousands if not millions of years. In this course, we will use this history as a resource to understand how technologies affect social relations, and conversely how the culture of a society shapes the technologies it produces. Do different technologies produce or result from different economic systems like feudalism, capitalism, and communism? Can specific technologies promote democratic or authoritarian politics? Do they suggest or enforce different patterns of race, class, or gender relations? Among the technologies we'll consider will be large objects like cathedrals, bridges, and airplanes; small ones like guns, clocks, and birth control pills; and networks like the electrical grid, the highway system, and the internet.</p>
<!--more-->
<p>The course will meet on Tuesday evenings, 6:00 to 9:00, from September 2 to December 9 in Williams Hall room 219. It will be a discussion-based seminar, though I will punctuate it with occasional presentations. I will be available for office hours before class on Tuesdays from 5:00 to 6:00 in Claudia Cohen Hall room 332, and encourage you to come by and talk.</p>
<h3>Assignments</h3>
<p>As a seminar, this course is primarily based on learning by discussing the required readings (listed below), so it’s essential that you <a href="reading">read and think about them</a> before each class meeting. Your engaged and insightful participation in discussions will account for 25% of your grade for the course.</p>
<p>The other assignments consist of three short papers, of approximately five pages each. I’ll provide more detailed prompts, but in short <a href="politics">the first paper</a> should present an argument about whether and how a particular technology “has politics,” <a href="observing">the second</a> should describe and analyze your observation of people using technology, and <a href="history">the third</a> should present a brief history of a technology of your choice. You will have an opportunity to submit a draft, get my feedback, and revise your paper before I grade it. Each paper will account for 25% of your grade for the course.</p>
<h3>Reading</h3>
<p>The following four books, which we’ll be reading cover-to-cover or nearly so, are available for sale at the Penn Book Center and for borrowing at Van Pelt Library’s Rosengarten Reserve Room. <cite><a href="https://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb01086.0001.001">Medieval Technology and Social Change</a></cite> is also available online, and other readings will be available through links below.</p>
<ul id="books">
	<li>Lynn White, Jr., <cite><a href="https://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb01086.0001.001">Medieval Technology and Social Change</a></cite> (1962).</li>
	<li>Thomas J. Misa, <cite>Leonardo to the Internet: Technology and Culture from the Renaissance to the Present</cite>, second edition (2011, revised from 2004 original).</li>
	<li>Ruth Schwartz Cowan, <cite>More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave</cite> (1983).</li>
	<li>David Edgerton, <cite>The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900</cite> (2007).</li>
</ul>
<h3>Schedule</h3>
<ul>
	<li>
		<h4>September 2: Introduction</h4>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>September 9: Technologies of Feudalism</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Langdon Winner, “<a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652">Do Artifacts Have Politics?</a>” (1980).</li>
			<li>White, <cite><a href="https://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb01086.0001.001">Medieval Technology and Social Change</a></cite>, preface and chapters 1 and 2.</li>
			<li>Misa, <cite>Leonardo to the Internet</cite>, preface and chapter 1.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>September 16: Roots of Capitalism</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Lewis Mumford, <cite><a href="https://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb01149.0001.001">Technics and Civilization</a></cite> (1934), objectives and chapter 1.</li>
			<li>Cynthia Cockburn, <cite>Machinery of Dominance: Women, Men, and Technical Know-How</cite> (1985), introduction and chapter 1.</li>
			<li>Misa, <cite>Leonardo to the Internet</cite>, chapter 2.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>September 23: Print Culture</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Marshall McLuhan, <cite>Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man</cite> (1964), chapters 1, 16, and 18.</li>
			<li>Elizabeth Eisenstein, <cite>The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe</cite>, second edition (2005, abridged from <cite>The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe</cite>, 1979), introduction and chapters 2 and 3.</li>
			<li>Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, <cite>Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts</cite>, second edition (1986, revised from 1979 original), pages 43–53.</li>
			<li><b>Draft due on <a href="politics">the politics of a technology</a>.</b></li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li class="newmodule" style="page-break-before: always">
		<h4>September 30: The Industrialization of Manufacturing</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Misa, <cite>Leonardo to the Internet</cite>, chapter 3.</li>
			<li>Walter Licht, <cite>Industrializing America: The Nineteenth Century</cite> (1995), introduction and chapters 2 and 3.</li>
			<li>Judith A. McGaw, “Gender and Papermaking” (1998, abridged from <cite>Most Wonderful Machine: Mechanization and Social Change in Berkshire Paper Making, 1801–1885</cite>, 1987).</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>October 7: The Industrialization of Time and Space</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Misa, <cite>Leonardo to the Internet</cite>, chapter 4.</li>
			<li>Wolfgang Schivelbusch, <cite>The Railway Journey: The Industrialization of Time and Space in the 19th Century</cite> (1986), chapters 1–6.</li>
			<li><b>Paper due on <a href="politics">the politics of a technology</a>.</b></li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>October 14: The Industrialization of Housework</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Cowan, <cite>More Work for Mother</cite>, chapters 1–5.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>October 21: Technological Systems</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Misa, <cite>Leonardo to the Internet</cite>, chapter 5.</li>
			<li>Thomas P. Hughes, <cite>American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm 1870–1970</cite> (1989), introduction and chapter 5.</li>
			<li>Leo Marx, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2010.0009"><i>Technology</i>: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept</a>” (2010, revised from 1997 original).</li>
			<li><b>Draft due on <a href="observing">observing technology in use</a>.</b></li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li class="newmodule">
		<h4>October 28: Modern Cities</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Misa, <cite>Leonardo to the Internet</cite>, chapter 6.</li>
			<li>David Nye, <cite>Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology, 1880–1940</cite> (1990), preface and chapters 2 and 3.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>November 4: Modern Media</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Friedrich A. Kittler, <cite>Gramophone, Film, Typewriter</cite> (1999, translated from 1986 German original), pages 1–37.</li>
			<li>Susan J. Douglas, <cite><a href="https://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb01134.0001.001">Inventing American Broadcasting, 1899–1922</a></cite> (1987), introduction and chapter 6.</li>
			<li>Claude S. Fischer, <cite><a href="https://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb00141.0001.001">America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940</a></cite> (1992), chapters 2 and 3.</li>
			<li><b>Paper due on <a href="observing">observing technology in use</a>.</b></li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>November 11: Alternative Modernities</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Edgerton, <cite>The Shock of the Old</cite>, introduction and chapters 1, 2, and 5.</li>
			<li>Paul R. Josephson, <cite>Would Trotsky Wear a Bluetooth? Technological Utopianism under Socialism, 1917–1989</cite> (2010), introduction and chapter 1.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>November 18: The Industrialization of Violence</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Misa, <cite>Leonardo to the Internet</cite>, chapter 7.</li>
			<li>Edgerton, <cite>The Shock of the Old</cite>, chapters 6 and 7.</li>
			<li>Paul N. Edwards, <cite><a href="http://cognet.mit.edu/book/closed-world">The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America</a></cite> (1996), pages 1–27.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li class="newmodule">
		<h4>November 25: <i>No class</i></h4>
		<ul>
			<li><b>Draft due on <a href="history">the history of a technology</a>.</b></li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>December 2: Globalization</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Edgerton, <cite>The Shock of the Old</cite>, chapters 3, 4, 8 and conclusion.</li>
			<li>Carroll Pursell, <cite>The Machine in America: A Social History of Technology</cite>, second edition (2007, revised from 1994 original), chapter 13.</li>
			<li>Misa, <cite>Leonardo to the Internet</cite>, chapter 8.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		<h4>December 9: Technological Systems Revisited</h4>
		<ul>
			<li>Misa, <cite>Leonardo to the Internet</cite>, chapters 9 and 10.</li>
			<li>Nathan Ensmenger, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2012.0126">The Digital Construction of Technology: Rethinking the History of Computers in Society</a>” (2012).</li>
			<li>Paolo Pedercini, “<a href="http://www.molleindustria.org/blog/videogames-and-the-spirit-of-capitalism/">Videogames and the Spirit of Capitalism</a>” (2014).</li>
			<li><b>Paper due on <a href="history">the history of a technology</a>.</b></li>
		</ul>
	</li>
</ul>]]></content><author><name>Peter Sachs Collopy</name></author><category term="teaching" /><category term="technology" /><category term="politics" /><category term="technopolitics" /><category term="engineering" /><category term="capitalism" /><category term="media" /><summary type="html"><![CDATA[This is a syllabus for Technology and Society (STSC/HSOC 003), a course offered in fall 2014 at the University of Pennsylvania. Technology plays an increasing role in our understandings of ourselves, our communities, and our societies, in how we think about politics and war, science and religion, work and play. Humans have made and used technologies, though, for thousands if not millions of years. In this course, we will use this history as a resource to understand how technologies affect social relations, and conversely how the culture of a society shapes the technologies it produces. Do different technologies produce or result from different economic systems like feudalism, capitalism, and communism? Can specific technologies promote democratic or authoritarian politics? Do they suggest or enforce different patterns of race, class, or gender relations? Among the technologies we'll consider will be large objects like cathedrals, bridges, and airplanes; small ones like guns, clocks, and birth control pills; and networks like the electrical grid, the highway system, and the internet.]]></summary></entry><entry><title type="html">Laboratories and Managerial Science</title><link href="https://collopy.net/writing/2010/laboratories/" rel="alternate" type="text/html" title="Laboratories and Managerial Science" /><published>2010-05-10T00:00:00-07:00</published><updated>2010-05-10T00:00:00-07:00</updated><id>https://collopy.net/writing/2010/laboratories</id><content type="html" xml:base="https://collopy.net/writing/2010/laboratories/"><![CDATA[In 2010, I took a course on “The Modern Origins of Science”—placing those origins more in the 19th century development of the industrial chemistry laboratory than in the early modern Scientific Revolution—with [Rob Kohler](https://hss.sas.upenn.edu/people/robert-e-kohler). Although Rob had officially retired, he was still teaching about one graduate seminar a year; I think this was his last. In perhaps my most institutionalist moment (and also one following in my father’s footsteps as a management scholar), I got interested in an argument Rob himself had made about the relationship between the laboratory and managerial capitalism, and also in how neglected this relationship had been by other scholars, particularly recently. “Management,” I wrote to Rob in proposing my final paper for the course, “is a critical part of laboratory practice, and this preexisting structure allowed laboratories to fit into the structure of managerial corporations (including eventually universities) without modification. The lab could in effect be black-boxed and referred to by the rest of the corporation through a director or PI. The most radical argument to draw from this might be that this facilitated the black-boxing of science as the process and product in which the laboratory was engaged, allowing managers outside the lab to see R&D as a corporate division like any other rather than dealing with research on its own terms as a technical enterprise. I'm not sure if I’ll take it as far as this last bit, though.” I indeed didn’t really get as far as this last bit, but here is what I did write.

• • •

In [an essay on the state of laboratory history](https://doi.org/10.1086/595769), Robert Kohler suggests a reason “why labs and lab science came to have such a prominent place in modern industrial corporations: the analytic categories and practices of lab science were congruent with the new managerial hierarchies and procedures of large-scale industrial capitalism, whereas those of the older shop culture were not.” Taking this assertion as a starting point, I want to argue more specifically that management itself has long been a critical component of laboratory practice, and that this preexisting social structure within laboratories facilitated their integration into managerial corporations and universities. I also want to point out that senior scientists are the default managers in laboratories, but that many managerial tasks are assigned to dedicated staff in particularly large and socially complex labs.

Management itself is a heterogenous activity which involves both planning the finances and operations of an organization and managing people, i.e. hiring and training employees and assigning them to tasks. Management thus involves a number of activities each of which are themselves complicated, but which break down into a couple of dichotomies. Managers both make decisions between known options and design previously unimagined products and corporate structures. More critically to an examination of laboratory science, they both set and communicate an agenda for an organization and administer its staff and operations.

Alfred Chandler defines managerial capitalism as a system in which critical business decisions are made by salaried managers rather than by the owners or directors of corporations. Managerial firms developed in the nineteenth century as firms managed by a family or by financiers grew. “No family or financial institution was large enough to staff the managerial hierarchies required to administer modern multiunit enterprises,” Chandler writes, but they could hire more salaried managers. As these managers developed expertise in the operations of the firm, the role of owners became limited to occasional decisions through a board of directors based on information provided primarily by managers. This analysis focuses on the agenda-setting aspect of management, although a more thorough analysis would probably reveal that managers also derive their power from their ability to build an organization around their own agenda.

Scholars of laboratories have also provided some useful background to an analysis of management in the lab. In *Laboratory Life*, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar depict the modern laboratory, exemplified by Roger Guillemin’s at the Salk Institute, as a manufactory for scientific papers with a marked division of labor. The laboratory does not appear to be either a factory or an administrative agency, they write, because it has substantial amounts of space dedicated to both offices, where “individuals referred to as doctors read and write,” and apparatus, where “other staff, known as technicians, spend most of their time handling equipment.” The labor of technicians leads not to tangible products but to inscriptions, especially figures and diagrams, which are passed on to “doctors”—scientists with Ph.D.s—in the office, who employ the information in writing journal articles, the final product of the laboratory. Energy, chemicals, animals, and the labor of technicians and doctors all represent inputs into a manufacturing process that culminates in these articles, texts that carry authority from their origin in the laboratory and their entanglement in a system of chemicals, organisms, and other natural objects. It’s difficult to escape the conclusion, then, that the laboratory is a factory, but one for the production of knowledge rather than tangible goods (and indeed, the authors attribute this thesis to scientists without themselves quite endorsing it).

Latour and Woolgar don’t analyze the relationship between the bench and the office in terms of power relations, or even describe whether and how doctors request information—and thus labor—from technicians. It’s not clear from their analysis who sets the research agenda or who hires whom. Outside of their discussion of the geography and labor of the laboratory, they describe lab directors as investors of social capital, relating laboratory science to business in a way that comes close to an analysis of management.

>He has sufficient capital of credibility to make unnecessary its direct investment in bench work. He is a capitalist par excellence, since he can see his capital increase substantially without having directly to engage in the work himself. His work is that of a full-time investor. Instead of producing data and making points, he tries to ensure that research is pursued in potentially rewarding areas, that credible data are produced, that the laboratory receives the largest possible share of credit, money and collaboration.

The characterization of lab director as investor is limited and imprecise, however. Investors have the option of being entirely absent from the operations of the corporation they hold shares in. Indeed, as Chandler points out, even the investors’ representatives on a board of directors have very limited power in practical terms. While a lab director can avoid “direct investment in bench work,” they cannot distance themselves from the lab entirely, as the authority of research produced in their lab derives partly from their reputation, which is transferred to it through their involvement in setting a research agenda. The director’s efforts to steer the lab in productive directions and bring in resources are a form of labor, focused on maximizing scientific productivity and reputational profit by directing workers. More than investors, lab directors are managers.

This does not mean that a single lab director must take on all the responsibilities of management, however. In [a 1970 paper](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01553198), Gerald Swatez describes the Alvarez group, the largest research group at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, which had 23 Ph.D. physicists, 20 graduate students, and 161 technicians. In this massive high-energy physics laboratory there was a division of managerial labor: senior physicists provided leadership, but “administrative supervision of the entire group is done by one man, not a physicist, relieving the group leader of the task.” Furthermore, the lab employed a coordinator for each experiment, an administrator for the scanning and measuring group, “and under him there are about four supervisors, whose jobs resemble that of a foreman in industry, scheduling the use of machines, shifting users from one machine to another, seeing that the rooms are kept neat.” In the Alvarez lab, Luis Alvarez delegated administrative responsibility to full-time managers. According to Swatez, Alvarez also shared his leadership responsibility, fostering an environment in which any physicist, credentialed with a Ph.D. or a graduate student, could propose an experiment. “If a group leader definitely disapproves of the proposal,” Swatez wrote, “he has the power to say so, but in this group he does not do so if someone wants the experiment badly enough to stand up to him.” Alvarez seems to have been an unusually egalitarian and humble scientist, even apprenticing himself to two graduate students when he felt alienated from basic physics at the age of 40. The distribution of management in his lab makes visible the labor that must be done in administration and agenda-setting, whether by one scientist or by the staff of the lab collectively. Swatez’s article reveals little, however, about the management of people in the Alvarez lab.

In her more recent analysis of the social order of high energy physics in the late-twentieth-century, Sharon Traweek describes some other ways in which senior scientists serve as managers within their laboratories. “It is considered inappropriate,” she writes, “for someone over fifty to be making discoveries.” Instead, the most professionally advanced physicists administer research groups and larger laboratories.

In Japan the leader of each research group administers finances, a “highly prestigious burden of science administration [which] occupies most of the *koza* leader’s time.” In addition, the group leader finds international placements for younger physicists in his lab, rotates them among different tasks so they develop a range of scientific skills, and brings them with him to university, government, and industry meetings to familiarize them with the politics of the research community. Traweek concludes that “the leader has a generative, nurturing role,” but it would be just as apt to say that much of his work consists of fostering professional development.

In the United States, physicists manage labs more informally and leave financial management to an administrative assistant, “a managerial position almost always held by women who are not scientists and who are well versed in institutional regulations and the informal pathways through bureaucratic labyrinths.” Nonetheless, the role of a senior physicist is to “gather about him a team of gifted people whose work he directs and coordinates by means of his example, will, and—some would say—whim.” Although Traweek does not describe either Japanese or American group leaders as commanding the labor of others, it is apparent that they are engaged in management through developing the skills and organizing the labor of other scientists.

These ethnographic works suggest that administration and staff development are important aspects of laboratory practice, but they don’t say much about power relations or argue that management is a defining characteristic of a particular kind of science. In [their more historical work](https://doi.org/10.1177/00732753980360040), though, Steve Sturdy and Roger Cooter argue that laboratories played a key role in “the rise of medical corporatism,” the process by which medicine in Britain came to be “organized as a vertically integrated hierarchy of relatively specialized practitioners and animated more by a managerial concern with collective efficiency than by the pursuit of patronage or individual competitive advantage.” This new system replaced two earlier economic models for medicine: competition of individual physicians for patients, and patronage of physicians by wealthy patients. The new corporate system, which developed between 1870 and 1950, involved a greater degree of cooperation between physicians in treating patients, but also a greater degree of hierarchy within the profession. According to Sturdy and Cooter, laboratories played a critical role in the introduction of this social structure to medicine.

Laboratories entered public health, an “administrative discipline” concerned with the “surveillance and classification” of disease in populations, in the mid nineteenth century. Laboratory science offered public health administrators knowledge based “on systematic and rational investigation of the underlying causes and processes of health and disease” rather than “the narrow empiricism of clinical experience.” Unlike clinical knowledge, laboratory knowledge could be incorporated into an administrative system of expertise which public health officials had based primarily on the discipline of statistics. By abstracting away the specific characteristics of patients’ bodies and isolating specific chemical and biological processes, laboratories manufactured medical knowledge which was legible to administrators focused on the management of disease. More concretely, research on poisons and germs “soon yielded new techniques for identifying disease and its causes in the population and the environment.” Sturdy and Cooter conclude that “laboratory science actually developed as an instrument of scientific management,” in this case the management of disease in populations.

Additionally, though, laboratory science developed as a mode of scientific management. Within the walls of a laboratory, scientists themselves practiced management, which played a crucial role in the production of scientific knowledge and went on to influence the social structure of medicine.

>The laboratory sciences also provided a model of how the work of the hospitals might itself be reorganized in the interests of greater efficiency. It was common for laboratory scientists from different disciplines to collaborate in research and teaching, bringing together complementary skills and expertise to address different aspects of a particular problem. Reformers hoped that the academicization of clinical teaching and research would help to encourage similar forms of teamwork within hospital medicine.

Teamwork between scientists trained in different disciplines is an important social form for production of knowledge in laboratories, but laboratory science often involves hierarchical relationships between researchers as well. Although Sturdy and Cooter do not say so, physicians could leave their experience in laboratory research with a set of management techniques as well as a taste for collaboration, contributing to the hierarchical and managerial development of medicine.

The final argument I want to make is that when laboratories have become incorporated into other managerial organizations the accommodation between the two has been relatively straightforward since both have already had similar social structures. Laboratories have entered corporate environments at a number of times and places. In Germany laboratories were associated with industry before they became formally integrated into the operations of universities; [R. Steven Turner writes](https://doi.org/10.2307/27757508) that in the 1840s “Prussian respondents nearly always equated large laboratories and extensive practical training to technological chemistry and industrial education.” The industry in which they were integrated, though, predated managerial capitalism. Chandler doesn’t cover the German context, but these industrial firms were presumably less structurally complex than later managerial firms and had fewer divisions, suggesting that their laboratories may have been focused less on research than on chemical synthesis. This relationship between industry and universities in Prussia also suggests that the laboratory as an institution developed in German universities from industrial models, travelled to the United States with the research university, and then reentered industry in a new managerial context.

One crucial point at which research laboratories entered industry was the establishment of AT&T’s Research Branch in 1911. This division was based within the existing Western Electric Research Department, and thus within an existing corporate structure, but was devoted to research in physics leading to new repeater technologies rather than to engineering intended to optimize existing technologies. The principal actors in establishing the Research Branch were John J. Carty, a telephone engineer entirely trained on the job, and Frank Jewett, a Ph.D. physicist. Both took on managerial roles, with Jewett hiring additional scientists while Carty developed corporate research policies and “personified Bell research and engineering” to the board of directors.

Early on Jewett recruited Harold D. Arnold to serve as the physicist responsible for laboratory work on the new telephone amplifier. Within three years he had hired 25 researchers and assistants who reported to Arnold. “Jewett made occasional forays into the laboratory and sometimes even offered advice to researchers,” writes Leonard Reich, “but he acted mainly as a recruiter of personnel, a synthesizer of information, a coordinator with other branches of the Engineering Department, and a conduit to Carty and the AT&T staff.” Like the senior scientists Traweek describes, Jewitt facilitated research more than he participated in it, devoting most of his time to managing people and information. As the person at the top of the Research Branch hierarchy, he also became the representative of his division to the rest of the company. The laboratory borrowed conventions from universities, going so far as to sponsor conferences, but the existing laboratory model of the senior scientist as manager facilitated the integration of the laboratory into the hierarchically organized corporation. When the Bell Telephone Laboratories became a separate corporation in 1925, Jewett became president, responsible for managing the labor of 3600 employees.

One important reason why a physicist like Jewett was able to take on the presidency of such a large organization was that he had been a manager throughout his career. The practice of laboratory research in which Jewett had been trained involved the labor of graduate students and technicians, and it was the responsibility of the credentialed scientist to guide this labor toward productive ends. Managing Bell Labs as president was different from running a lab at the University of Chicago or MIT, but it was different primarily in scale. A senior scientist, regardless of his institutional location, was responsible for such tasks as staff development, communicating with funders, and setting a research agenda, and this was no different within a firm such as AT&T. Furthermore, at AT&T research managers such as Carty and Jewett were able to represent their laboratories to the corporation in the same way that a lab director in a university or institute represents their laboratory to their colleagues and the public, and thus to take their place within an existing corporate hierarchy.

### Works Cited
- Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., “The United States: Seedbed of Managerial Capitalism,” in *Managerial Hierarchies: Comparative Perspectives on the Rise of the Modern Industrial Enterprise*, edited by Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. and Herman Daems (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980).
- Robert E. Kohler, “[Lab History: Reflections](https://doi.org/10.1086/595769),” *Isis* 99 (2008).
- Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, *Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts*, second edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).
- Leonard S. Reich, *The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876–1926* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).
- Steve Sturdy and Roger Cooter, “[Science, Scientific Management, and the Transformation of Medicine in Britain, c. 1870–1950](https://doi.org/10.1177/00732753980360040),” *History of Science* 36 (1998).
- Gerald M. Swatez, “[The Social Organization of a University Laboratory](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01553198),” *Minerva* 8 (1970).
- Sharon Traweek, *Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists* (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988).
- R. Steven Turner, “[Justus Liebig versus Prussian Chemistry: Reflection on Early Institute-Building in Germany](https://doi.org/10.2307/27757508),” *Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences* 13 (1982): 137.]]></content><author><name>Peter Sachs Collopy</name></author><category term="writing" /><category term="science" /><category term="laboratories" /><category term="capitalism" /><summary type="html"><![CDATA[In 2010, I took a course on “The Modern Origins of Science”—placing those origins more in the 19th century development of the industrial chemistry laboratory than in the early modern Scientific Revolution—with Rob Kohler. Although Rob had officially retired, he was still teaching about one graduate seminar a year; I think this was his last. In perhaps my most institutionalist moment (and also one following in my father’s footsteps as a management scholar), I got interested in an argument Rob himself had made about the relationship between the laboratory and managerial capitalism, and also in how neglected this relationship had been by other scholars, particularly recently. “Management,” I wrote to Rob in proposing my final paper for the course, “is a critical part of laboratory practice, and this preexisting structure allowed laboratories to fit into the structure of managerial corporations (including eventually universities) without modification. The lab could in effect be black-boxed and referred to by the rest of the corporation through a director or PI. The most radical argument to draw from this might be that this facilitated the black-boxing of science as the process and product in which the laboratory was engaged, allowing managers outside the lab to see R&amp;D as a corporate division like any other rather than dealing with research on its own terms as a technical enterprise. I’m not sure if I’ll take it as far as this last bit, though.” I indeed didn’t really get as far as this last bit, but here is what I did write. • • • In an essay on the state of laboratory history, Robert Kohler suggests a reason “why labs and lab science came to have such a prominent place in modern industrial corporations: the analytic categories and practices of lab science were congruent with the new managerial hierarchies and procedures of large-scale industrial capitalism, whereas those of the older shop culture were not.” Taking this assertion as a starting point, I want to argue more specifically that management itself has long been a critical component of laboratory practice, and that this preexisting social structure within laboratories facilitated their integration into managerial corporations and universities. I also want to point out that senior scientists are the default managers in laboratories, but that many managerial tasks are assigned to dedicated staff in particularly large and socially complex labs. Management itself is a heterogenous activity which involves both planning the finances and operations of an organization and managing people, i.e. hiring and training employees and assigning them to tasks. Management thus involves a number of activities each of which are themselves complicated, but which break down into a couple of dichotomies. Managers both make decisions between known options and design previously unimagined products and corporate structures. More critically to an examination of laboratory science, they both set and communicate an agenda for an organization and administer its staff and operations. Alfred Chandler defines managerial capitalism as a system in which critical business decisions are made by salaried managers rather than by the owners or directors of corporations. Managerial firms developed in the nineteenth century as firms managed by a family or by financiers grew. “No family or financial institution was large enough to staff the managerial hierarchies required to administer modern multiunit enterprises,” Chandler writes, but they could hire more salaried managers. As these managers developed expertise in the operations of the firm, the role of owners became limited to occasional decisions through a board of directors based on information provided primarily by managers. This analysis focuses on the agenda-setting aspect of management, although a more thorough analysis would probably reveal that managers also derive their power from their ability to build an organization around their own agenda. Scholars of laboratories have also provided some useful background to an analysis of management in the lab. In Laboratory Life, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar depict the modern laboratory, exemplified by Roger Guillemin’s at the Salk Institute, as a manufactory for scientific papers with a marked division of labor. The laboratory does not appear to be either a factory or an administrative agency, they write, because it has substantial amounts of space dedicated to both offices, where “individuals referred to as doctors read and write,” and apparatus, where “other staff, known as technicians, spend most of their time handling equipment.” The labor of technicians leads not to tangible products but to inscriptions, especially figures and diagrams, which are passed on to “doctors”—scientists with Ph.D.s—in the office, who employ the information in writing journal articles, the final product of the laboratory. Energy, chemicals, animals, and the labor of technicians and doctors all represent inputs into a manufacturing process that culminates in these articles, texts that carry authority from their origin in the laboratory and their entanglement in a system of chemicals, organisms, and other natural objects. It’s difficult to escape the conclusion, then, that the laboratory is a factory, but one for the production of knowledge rather than tangible goods (and indeed, the authors attribute this thesis to scientists without themselves quite endorsing it). Latour and Woolgar don’t analyze the relationship between the bench and the office in terms of power relations, or even describe whether and how doctors request information—and thus labor—from technicians. It’s not clear from their analysis who sets the research agenda or who hires whom. Outside of their discussion of the geography and labor of the laboratory, they describe lab directors as investors of social capital, relating laboratory science to business in a way that comes close to an analysis of management. He has sufficient capital of credibility to make unnecessary its direct investment in bench work. He is a capitalist par excellence, since he can see his capital increase substantially without having directly to engage in the work himself. His work is that of a full-time investor. Instead of producing data and making points, he tries to ensure that research is pursued in potentially rewarding areas, that credible data are produced, that the laboratory receives the largest possible share of credit, money and collaboration. The characterization of lab director as investor is limited and imprecise, however. Investors have the option of being entirely absent from the operations of the corporation they hold shares in. Indeed, as Chandler points out, even the investors’ representatives on a board of directors have very limited power in practical terms. While a lab director can avoid “direct investment in bench work,” they cannot distance themselves from the lab entirely, as the authority of research produced in their lab derives partly from their reputation, which is transferred to it through their involvement in setting a research agenda. The director’s efforts to steer the lab in productive directions and bring in resources are a form of labor, focused on maximizing scientific productivity and reputational profit by directing workers. More than investors, lab directors are managers. This does not mean that a single lab director must take on all the responsibilities of management, however. In a 1970 paper, Gerald Swatez describes the Alvarez group, the largest research group at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, which had 23 Ph.D. physicists, 20 graduate students, and 161 technicians. In this massive high-energy physics laboratory there was a division of managerial labor: senior physicists provided leadership, but “administrative supervision of the entire group is done by one man, not a physicist, relieving the group leader of the task.” Furthermore, the lab employed a coordinator for each experiment, an administrator for the scanning and measuring group, “and under him there are about four supervisors, whose jobs resemble that of a foreman in industry, scheduling the use of machines, shifting users from one machine to another, seeing that the rooms are kept neat.” In the Alvarez lab, Luis Alvarez delegated administrative responsibility to full-time managers. According to Swatez, Alvarez also shared his leadership responsibility, fostering an environment in which any physicist, credentialed with a Ph.D. or a graduate student, could propose an experiment. “If a group leader definitely disapproves of the proposal,” Swatez wrote, “he has the power to say so, but in this group he does not do so if someone wants the experiment badly enough to stand up to him.” Alvarez seems to have been an unusually egalitarian and humble scientist, even apprenticing himself to two graduate students when he felt alienated from basic physics at the age of 40. The distribution of management in his lab makes visible the labor that must be done in administration and agenda-setting, whether by one scientist or by the staff of the lab collectively. Swatez’s article reveals little, however, about the management of people in the Alvarez lab. In her more recent analysis of the social order of high energy physics in the late-twentieth-century, Sharon Traweek describes some other ways in which senior scientists serve as managers within their laboratories. “It is considered inappropriate,” she writes, “for someone over fifty to be making discoveries.” Instead, the most professionally advanced physicists administer research groups and larger laboratories. In Japan the leader of each research group administers finances, a “highly prestigious burden of science administration [which] occupies most of the koza leader’s time.” In addition, the group leader finds international placements for younger physicists in his lab, rotates them among different tasks so they develop a range of scientific skills, and brings them with him to university, government, and industry meetings to familiarize them with the politics of the research community. Traweek concludes that “the leader has a generative, nurturing role,” but it would be just as apt to say that much of his work consists of fostering professional development. In the United States, physicists manage labs more informally and leave financial management to an administrative assistant, “a managerial position almost always held by women who are not scientists and who are well versed in institutional regulations and the informal pathways through bureaucratic labyrinths.” Nonetheless, the role of a senior physicist is to “gather about him a team of gifted people whose work he directs and coordinates by means of his example, will, and—some would say—whim.” Although Traweek does not describe either Japanese or American group leaders as commanding the labor of others, it is apparent that they are engaged in management through developing the skills and organizing the labor of other scientists. These ethnographic works suggest that administration and staff development are important aspects of laboratory practice, but they don’t say much about power relations or argue that management is a defining characteristic of a particular kind of science. In their more historical work, though, Steve Sturdy and Roger Cooter argue that laboratories played a key role in “the rise of medical corporatism,” the process by which medicine in Britain came to be “organized as a vertically integrated hierarchy of relatively specialized practitioners and animated more by a managerial concern with collective efficiency than by the pursuit of patronage or individual competitive advantage.” This new system replaced two earlier economic models for medicine: competition of individual physicians for patients, and patronage of physicians by wealthy patients. The new corporate system, which developed between 1870 and 1950, involved a greater degree of cooperation between physicians in treating patients, but also a greater degree of hierarchy within the profession. According to Sturdy and Cooter, laboratories played a critical role in the introduction of this social structure to medicine. Laboratories entered public health, an “administrative discipline” concerned with the “surveillance and classification” of disease in populations, in the mid nineteenth century. Laboratory science offered public health administrators knowledge based “on systematic and rational investigation of the underlying causes and processes of health and disease” rather than “the narrow empiricism of clinical experience.” Unlike clinical knowledge, laboratory knowledge could be incorporated into an administrative system of expertise which public health officials had based primarily on the discipline of statistics. By abstracting away the specific characteristics of patients’ bodies and isolating specific chemical and biological processes, laboratories manufactured medical knowledge which was legible to administrators focused on the management of disease. More concretely, research on poisons and germs “soon yielded new techniques for identifying disease and its causes in the population and the environment.” Sturdy and Cooter conclude that “laboratory science actually developed as an instrument of scientific management,” in this case the management of disease in populations. Additionally, though, laboratory science developed as a mode of scientific management. Within the walls of a laboratory, scientists themselves practiced management, which played a crucial role in the production of scientific knowledge and went on to influence the social structure of medicine. The laboratory sciences also provided a model of how the work of the hospitals might itself be reorganized in the interests of greater efficiency. It was common for laboratory scientists from different disciplines to collaborate in research and teaching, bringing together complementary skills and expertise to address different aspects of a particular problem. Reformers hoped that the academicization of clinical teaching and research would help to encourage similar forms of teamwork within hospital medicine. Teamwork between scientists trained in different disciplines is an important social form for production of knowledge in laboratories, but laboratory science often involves hierarchical relationships between researchers as well. Although Sturdy and Cooter do not say so, physicians could leave their experience in laboratory research with a set of management techniques as well as a taste for collaboration, contributing to the hierarchical and managerial development of medicine. The final argument I want to make is that when laboratories have become incorporated into other managerial organizations the accommodation between the two has been relatively straightforward since both have already had similar social structures. Laboratories have entered corporate environments at a number of times and places. In Germany laboratories were associated with industry before they became formally integrated into the operations of universities; R. Steven Turner writes that in the 1840s “Prussian respondents nearly always equated large laboratories and extensive practical training to technological chemistry and industrial education.” The industry in which they were integrated, though, predated managerial capitalism. Chandler doesn’t cover the German context, but these industrial firms were presumably less structurally complex than later managerial firms and had fewer divisions, suggesting that their laboratories may have been focused less on research than on chemical synthesis. This relationship between industry and universities in Prussia also suggests that the laboratory as an institution developed in German universities from industrial models, travelled to the United States with the research university, and then reentered industry in a new managerial context. One crucial point at which research laboratories entered industry was the establishment of AT&amp;T’s Research Branch in 1911. This division was based within the existing Western Electric Research Department, and thus within an existing corporate structure, but was devoted to research in physics leading to new repeater technologies rather than to engineering intended to optimize existing technologies. The principal actors in establishing the Research Branch were John J. Carty, a telephone engineer entirely trained on the job, and Frank Jewett, a Ph.D. physicist. Both took on managerial roles, with Jewett hiring additional scientists while Carty developed corporate research policies and “personified Bell research and engineering” to the board of directors. Early on Jewett recruited Harold D. Arnold to serve as the physicist responsible for laboratory work on the new telephone amplifier. Within three years he had hired 25 researchers and assistants who reported to Arnold. “Jewett made occasional forays into the laboratory and sometimes even offered advice to researchers,” writes Leonard Reich, “but he acted mainly as a recruiter of personnel, a synthesizer of information, a coordinator with other branches of the Engineering Department, and a conduit to Carty and the AT&amp;T staff.” Like the senior scientists Traweek describes, Jewitt facilitated research more than he participated in it, devoting most of his time to managing people and information. As the person at the top of the Research Branch hierarchy, he also became the representative of his division to the rest of the company. The laboratory borrowed conventions from universities, going so far as to sponsor conferences, but the existing laboratory model of the senior scientist as manager facilitated the integration of the laboratory into the hierarchically organized corporation. When the Bell Telephone Laboratories became a separate corporation in 1925, Jewett became president, responsible for managing the labor of 3600 employees. One important reason why a physicist like Jewett was able to take on the presidency of such a large organization was that he had been a manager throughout his career. The practice of laboratory research in which Jewett had been trained involved the labor of graduate students and technicians, and it was the responsibility of the credentialed scientist to guide this labor toward productive ends. Managing Bell Labs as president was different from running a lab at the University of Chicago or MIT, but it was different primarily in scale. A senior scientist, regardless of his institutional location, was responsible for such tasks as staff development, communicating with funders, and setting a research agenda, and this was no different within a firm such as AT&amp;T. Furthermore, at AT&amp;T research managers such as Carty and Jewett were able to represent their laboratories to the corporation in the same way that a lab director in a university or institute represents their laboratory to their colleagues and the public, and thus to take their place within an existing corporate hierarchy. Works Cited Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., “The United States: Seedbed of Managerial Capitalism,” in Managerial Hierarchies: Comparative Perspectives on the Rise of the Modern Industrial Enterprise, edited by Alfred D. Chandler, Jr. and Herman Daems (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980). Robert E. Kohler, “Lab History: Reflections,” Isis 99 (2008). Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, second edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986). Leonard S. Reich, The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and Business at GE and Bell, 1876–1926 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). Steve Sturdy and Roger Cooter, “Science, Scientific Management, and the Transformation of Medicine in Britain, c. 1870–1950,” History of Science 36 (1998). Gerald M. Swatez, “The Social Organization of a University Laboratory,” Minerva 8 (1970). Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988). R. Steven Turner, “Justus Liebig versus Prussian Chemistry: Reflection on Early Institute-Building in Germany,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 13 (1982): 137.]]></summary></entry></feed>