Technique, Technology and their relationship with the Body (A sociological theory on a very strange couple). Guido Frison Rome, May 2011 . A workshop.

Technique, Technology and their relationship with the Body (A sociological theory on a very strange couple). Guido Frison Rome, May A workshop held by Prof. Roberto Finelli, Rome 3 University. A sociological contribution to the concept of body in philosophy. Rome, May 3th, A workshop held by Prof. Roberto Finelli, Roma 3 University. A sociological contribution to the philosophical concept of body . (private) (1872–1950) ( ) ◄

General Index (In-1) The content of the lecture is split in four units : In=Introduction; U1= A sociological model of technology; U2= A sociological model of technique; L= literature . In= Introduction U2- Mauss : a sociological model of technique U1- Beckmann: a sociological model of technology A conceptual Map of the Unit 2A A map of the scientific discussion of the couple technique/technologie The set of concepts used in the present lecture 2.0- Mauss’s concept of technologie remains without a sociological foundation A conceptual map of the Unit 1 1.1.1-The Emergence of Technological Knowledge in the West The features of Technologie 2.1- “Les techniques du corps” (1935) & 2.3 “Les techniques et la technologie” (1948) 1.1.5-The complex nature of Technologie 1.2- Beckmann’s model of technological knowledge 1.3-Marx’s Technologie 2.2- Manuel d’Ethnographie (1947 ) & 2.4 The foundation of the Institut d’Ethnologie 1.4-Taylor’s changes of the labour process and his technological innovations 2.5-Durkheim’s Paradigm & technologie 1.5-Pre-technological knowledge in the medieval scribal era →see Literature 2.6-Mauss is the heir of the American School of technology 1.6-Embedded knowledge of production in non-literate cultures 2.7-Lemonnier’s analysis of technology Conclusions Summary : Three types of knowledge concerning production →L= Literature on specific subjects

The Strange Couple: Technology & Technique
i) Beckmann founded in 1777 a discipline called Technologie , describing a sociological model for technological knowledge (Beckmann’s Model). ii) Mauss wrote in 1935 a seminal work ( Les techniques du corps) which built the basis for defining an entirely sociological concept of technique. ◄ Beckmann : Technology without technique Mauss :Technique without technology IOANNES BECKMANN, Professor oeconomiae in academia Georgia Augusta, natus Hoyae d. 4. Jun 1739. “Les Techniques du corps (1935). May 10th 1872 – February 1th 1950

Johann Beckmann Marcel Mauss
Beckmann was a Linnaeus’pupil, Cameralist, historian of technology, botanist and founder of many disciplines. Mauss was an anthropologist, founder of the modern French school of Anthropology of techniques (technologie culturelle). He and his famous uncle Durkheim were both descendants of a large hebrew family. Beckmann’s Anleitung zur Technologie (1777) laid the foundations of a new science called Technologie, taught at the Göttingen University. The Manuel d’Ethnologie (1947) witnesses Mauss‘ interest on techniques of non-literate cultures, which begins very early at the beginning of the 20th-century. Reviewer of the “Physikalisch-ökonomische Bibliothek” “ (23 vols) Reviewer of the “L’ Année Sociologique” for which he wrote endless papers and a great number of review articles. Starting from 1766 Beckmann taught at the Göttingen University various subjects and within them the discipline of Technologie. Starting from 1901 Mauss taught ethnological subjects at the École Pratique des Hautes Études , and successively at the l'Institut d'Ethnologie de la Sorbonne and Collège de France . The instructions for anthropological field work were a typical subject of his lectures. Beckmann was a vir doctissimus ; he spoke various modern languages, learned Latin and Greek so well that he was able to write philological essays. « …il avait tout lu, il avait tout retenu, il avait tout assimilé et repensé d'une façon magistrale » [1978. Laroche Marie-Charlotte. L'enseignement de Maurice Leenhardt. In: Journal de la Société des océanistes. N°58-59, Tome 34, pp ; p.45]. (In-2) Beckmann & Mauss ◄

(In-3) Technique and Technology are two faces of the same coin
The terms technique and technology : i) refer to two different social facts ii) have different sociological foundations iii) have different historical origins Obverse (left): Caesar's head (wreathed); CAESAR DICT(ATOR) PERPETVO We will see in the following slides that the dichotomy technique/technology is mirrored by other pairs, such as: emic/etic body technique/ instrumental technique , sociological category /naturalistic category , social sciences/sciences of the nature mechanical machine /algorithmic machine. ◄

(In-4) The relationship between technique and technology
Beckmann : Technology without technique Mauss :Technique without technology (In-4) The relationship between technique and technology The determination of this relationship is much harder than celebrating the wedding of Renzo and Lucia. Many factors hamper the actual understanding of these two concepts or terms and hide their complex relationship. These are : i) Before Beckmann , the term Technologie had a complicated set of meanings and acquired a new modern meaning with Beckmann. → ii) Technologie originated within the Cameralism movement, a German school of thought, and developed in a historical period where the concept of social science did not still exist . → iii) Beckmann’s Technologie entered into a crisis due the crisis of the Cameralism and the rising of the Nationalökonomie. → ◄

(In-5 )The relationship between technique and technology
Beckmann : Technology without technique Mauss :Technique without technology (In-5 )The relationship between technique and technology v) The absence of the pair technique/technology in the lexicon of the classical and neoclassical school of economics ( three examples). ◄ iv) The decline of Cameralism was accompanied by the rise of a sui generis German ideology centered on a multifaceted concept of Technik, with its respective philosophy . → vii) At the beginning of the 20th century American Ethnology, which had originally devoted great effort to describe the techniques of non-literate people, entered into a crisis and its evolutive –diffusionist paradigm was substituted by another paradigm centered on culture, but not on techniques ( material culture). See Silverman “The Boasian and the invention of Cultural Anthropology” in Barth et ai 2005, pp ; Stocking 1974, 1996. → vi) The big number of definitions of the term technology (at minimum 41) enounced after the 1777 Anleitung zur Technologie (see especially Beaune 1980). → →

(In-6) The relationship between technique and technology
David Hilbert ( ) ◄ The modern technologist is like David Hilbert, the great mathematician, when he considered the Euclidian geometry on his Grundlagen der Geometrie. Hilbert began his discussion by considering three systems of things which he calls points, straight lines, and planes, and sets up a system of axioms connecting these elements in their mutual relations. Similarly , the technologist considers, in an abstract way, any set of body techniques , and tries to connect them in new combinations The anthropologist of the techniques and the technologist are modern social actors who look at the same phenomenon with a scientific approach, respectively of sociological and naturalistic type, but with different aims.

A conceptual map of the Unit 1
A conceptual map of the Unit 1. Technological, pre-technological & embedded knowledge. Beckmann’s Model of technology Hoya an der Weser ▲

1.1.1-The Emergence of Technological Knowledge in the West . (U1-1)
Beckmann was a follower of Johann Heinrich Gottlob von Justi, one of the leading German cameralist s of the 18th century. By using Police ordinances, the cameralist fulfilled his functions on the basis of a political obligation. The cameralist sought to promote the exploitation of natural wealth and the development of productive arts, by modifying the external conditions of the production process. Beckmann was a Linnaeus’s pupil ( see for example the two following works:: i) Linnei sistema naturae in epitomen redactum ii) Lexicon Botanicum 1801) Cameralism The Linnaean research program (Natural History) Vollständige Abhandlung von denen Manufakturen und Fabriken, 2 Bände, I (1758), II (1761) Beckmann’s Technologie. Beckmann represents our starting point, because from his time on, the term Technologie indicated both a specific sociological institution and an academic autonomous discipline founded by Beckmann himself. ◄

The features of Technologie 1. 1
The features of Technologie Technological knowledge is naturalistic (U1-2) Introduction to technology, or to the knowledge of crafts, factories and manufactures, above all those which are in closer connection with agriculture, Police and cameral science. In addition to this, contributions [ are given] to the history of arts. "Technology is the science which teaches how to treat (Verarbeitung) natural objects (Naturalien) or the knowledge of crafts (Gewerbe). Instead in the workshops, it is only shown [that] one must follow the instructions and the habits of the master in order to produce the commodity, [on the contrary] technology provides in systematic order fundamental introduction[s] in finding the means to reach this final goal on the basis of true principles and reliable experiences, and how to explain and to utilize the phenomena which take place during the treatment" (J. Beckmann, Anleitung zur Technologie, 2nd Ed. 1780:17). ◄

1.1.3.1-Beckmann’s approach to production (U1-3)
Beckmann ‘ s idea of production mirrors the cameralistic idea of economics, which begins from the natural state of materials and ends with the trade of the finished goods. Beckmann’s point of view is twofold, because from one side it is naturalistic, and from the other it subsumes those of the single producers (manufacturer , artisan or farmer) see his Beyträge zur Okonomie, Technologie, Polizei- und Cameralwissens-chaft ( ) and his third edition of Justi’s Vollständige Abhandlung von -den Manufacturen und Fabriken mit Verbesserungen und Anmerkungen von Johann Beckmann, (1789) Beckmann devoted to each of these steps an essay or a work: i) the process begins from raw materials of the agriculture and natural resources handled in his Grundsätze der teutschen Landwirtschaft , 1769, then ◄

1.1.3.2- Beckmann’s approach to production (U1-4)
ii) It passes across the circle of production ( see the Anleitung zur Technologie , 1777) and its correspondent innovation process (discussed in the Entwurf einer allgemeinen Technologie ,1806). iii) After that, it becomes a final good, which is studied by a specific science (Vorbereitung zur Waarenkunde, [waarenkunde= Science of commodities]). iv) Finally, the good is traded (see the Anleitung zur Handelswissen-schaft ,1789). ◄

The features of Technologie 1. 1. 4
The features of Technologie The social actor interested on Technologie (U1-5) Technologie is a discipline, that interests only the subject who exerts legitimate Herrschaft and gives directions to the workers. "It [Technologie] must not train any weaver, any beer-maker, nor in general any craftsman (Handwerker) because to practice their art they need great ability and dexterity which [both] have to be acquired separately through boring exercise, but are useless abilities for those to whom I am referring" (Beckmann, Anleitung zur Technologie , 1780 , Vorrede of the 1st Ed). ◄

1.1.4.2-The social actor interested on Technologie (U1-6)
Technologie is a discipline, that interests only the subject who exerts legitimate Herrschaft and gives directions to the workers. In the eighteenth century, Police Science (Polizeiwissenschaft) was the Science of Government ,or the “science of happiness” as some scholars call it, that is a very broad concept that encompassed nearly all tasks of government. “The knowledge of crafts, factories and manufactures is indispensabie to anyone who wants to dedicate himself to the Police and Cameral sciences.” Beckmann, Anleitung zur Technologie , (1780 , Vorrede of the 1st edition). ◄

1.1.5.- Summary: the complex nature of Technologie & a modest conclusion ((U1-7)
◄ i) Technological knowledge is an etic knowledge; this is a sociological fact. ii) The field to which Technologie is applied (production process) is again a social fact. iii) The form of power relationship which characterizes the Cameralist and the German absolutist Wohlfahrtstaat is a legitime Herrschaft iv) However , Technologie ‘s method is of naturalistic kind! A modest conclusion: the field of Technologie is located at the interface of sociological and naturalistic facts.

1-The object of Technologie.
1.2-An ideal type (→): Beckmann’s Model consists of four parameters (U1-8) 1-The object of Technologie. 2- The social actor interested in technological knowledge. 3-The ideology of the social actor interested in technological knowledge. 4- The epistemological nature of technological knowledge. 1- The sociological object of Technologie is something that can be defined as industrial labour. 2- The social actor interested in technological knowledge is the one who exerts a legitimate domination ((→)): over the production process 3- The ideology of the social actor who exerts a legitime Herrschaft over the production process promotes changes of the labour-process. 4-Technologie is a science or rather a naturalistic view point which examines what intervenes between the worker and his means of labour. The ideal type had already been published (Frison, G. “Second and third Part: “Beckmann and Marx. Technologie and Classical Political Economy”, History and Technology, 1993b, 3:161), and generalized to take account of some authors who handled one or both terms of the pair technique/technology (Marx, Mauss, Weber, Taylor, Schumpeter). The ideal type is appropriately modified for the needs of the present article. ◄

1.3.1-Marx ‘s Technologie (U1-9)
Marx is the only classical economist who was aware of the German concept of Technologie and is the one author who uses it in an economic frame. Neither A. Smith, nor Ricardo, nor J.S. Mill used this concept. Technology is defined in terms of the social process of modern industry: the principle " to resolve each process of production as considered in itself into its constituent elements and without any regard to their possible execution by the hand of man, created the new science of technology" (personal translation, Marx , I:456, see also I:434). In his Economic Manuscript of (Marx ) Marx gives a different and complementary concept of technology : "just as the investigation of the use values of commodities as such [belongs] to the science of commodities, so the investigation of the labour process in reality [belongs] to technology (Marx, , 3.1 :49 =Marx, 1985, Collected Works, vol. 30 :55; personal translation). ◄

1.3.2-Marx‘s Technologie (U1-10)
The social actor interested in technological knowledge is the capitalist who has an "undisputed authority over labourers within the labour-process“ (Marx , I:336). The capitalist is represented essentially as an innovator who continuously tries to yield surplus-value from the production process. Marxian theory moves the concept of technology from the field of political obligation, typical of Beckmann’s work, to that of economic obligation. The capitalist’s goal is to change the patterns of use of labour-power and/or modify the means of labour in order to obtain a surplus-value. The valorisation process is achieved by means of the labour process. Are the labour process’ social relationships really split from other social facts in any kind of society? N.B.: Production process = labour process + valorisation process. ◄

1.4.1-The changes of the labour process brought by Taylor and the role of technology (U1-11)
The result of the changes Taylor made is that the production process is replicated in paper form before and after it takes place in physical form (Braverman, 1974 :125).T his appears to be the real cause of technology. Although Taylor never used the concept of technology, Taylor’s Scientific Management (SM) marked both the rebirth and the increase of the functions ascribed to technology. Taylor combined i) technological analysis of cutting metal machinery, and studies on belting, steam hammers and other tool machines with ii) organization and time prescriptions (technical directions). The most striking innovation of Taylor’s approach consists in the new procedures that workers were expected to comply with. Although radically transformed, these procedures still remain social facts in Mauss’s sense. ◄ Braverman, H. Labor and Monopoly Capital , Monthly Review Press: New York- London, 1974.

1.4.2-The changes of the labour process brought by Taylor and the role of technology (U1-12)
For Taylor, the manager was expected to be acquainted with naturalistic productive phenomena, as well as with different methods, which replicate the production through accounting and the organization’s structure controls: in such a way he could prescribe the norms that regulated production and, in particular, the use of means of labour. Such knowledge was preliminarily entrusted to the manager, more exactly to his programming office, as a separate knowledge, and continuously updated. ◄ For a pre-technological knowledge click on

1. 6- Embedded knowledge concerning production in non- literate cultures (U1-13)
Technological and pre-technological knowledge do not fit with non-literate knowledge of production . Some authors highlighted how the chaînes opératoires of some cultures were linked to kinship relationships, or to myths and religious acts (A. Radcliffe-Brown, E. Will and L. Dumont ). It t may be legitimate to suppose that knowledge of techniques is imbedded in other sociological systems. Pierre Lemonnier 2004 “..il est illusoire de distinguer a priori les techniques des autres productions socioculturelles. Cinquante années de technologie culturelle ont amplement démontré que, du fait de l’inscription des représentations et des actions techniques dans toutes sortes de systèmes de pensée et de pratiques, .. » (2004, Pierre Lemonnier “Mythiques chaînes opératoires” Techniques & Culture , ; ◄

Summary- three types of knowledge concerning production (U1-14)
The knowledge of production procedures is usually transmitted via oral directions and by contact . Beckmann’s model permits to distinguish three main classes : b) PRE-TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: The description of the production process takes the form of prescriptive recipes: it is of pre-scientific type and is transmitted via manuscripts. See for example the knowledge of pigments and dyes in the Middle Ages Summary- three types of knowledge concerning production (U1-14) c) EMBEDDED KNOWLEDGE : the knowledge concerning production is inscribed in various kinds of social acts. This is typical of cultures without literacy. ◄ a) TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE : the description of the production process is made with scientific procedures, and is transmitted via printed matter See for example Beckmann, Marx , and Taylor

A conceptual Map of the Unit 2.
The three main works by Mauss on technique & technologie The determinants of the concept of technique 2.0- Mauss’ technologie has no sociological basis 2.4 – The foundation of the Institut d’Ethnologie 2.1- “Les techniques du corps” (1935). (This seminal work founds a sociological concept of technique) Separation criterion of technique from magic and ritual 2.5- Durkheim’s paradigm and the role of the concepts of morphologie sociale/ physiologie sociale. 2.2 – Manuel d’ethnographie (1947). It collects the lectures by Mauss given in a long period of time beginning from 1926 2.6– Mauss may be considered the heir of the American school of technology 2.3 “Les techniques et la technologie” (1948). 2.7- The analysis of techniques by Lemonnier ◄

2.0 Mauss. Technique without technologie (U2-1)
Preliminary remark: Mauss defined a concept of technique of sociological type. Moreover he tried to separate the technical act from the magic and ritual ones. « La technologie ….prétend à juste titre étudier toutes les techniques, toute la vie technique des hommes depuis l’origine de l’humanité jusqu’à nos jours. » M. Mauss » Les techniques et la technologie », 1948 Mauss ‘interest on technologie dates back to the year In fact a section, devoted to technology, in the fourth volume of the Année Sociologique, was established. This occurred long before he defined the concept of technique in ( Les techniques du corps) or that of technologie (in 1948 , Les techniques et la technologie). ◄ However, some criticisms can be made to Mauss’ concept of technologie, because in our opinion technologie is much more than a logos concerning techniques . According to Mauss, the discipline of technologie does not need a sociological foundation because he thought that it was a logos concerning the description of techniques. This is likely due to the fact that Mauss found soon early at the beginning of his work a ready made ethnological tradition devoted to the description of techniques, which, although labeled under different names, he called technologie .

2.0- Mauss: technique without technologie (U2-2)
◄ iii) Mauss was not aware that German Technologie anticipated his technologie about 150 years. André Leroi-Gourhan (1911 – 1986) , a Mauss’pupil, archaeologist, paleontologist and paleoanthropologist. ii) Technologie is what today is called an etic ( → ) concept . It seems unlikely that Mauss asked himself this question: why is technology always an etic concept, while technique may be a emic or an unaware knowledge? iv) Leroi-Gourhan made the Maussian concept of technique an operative concept (see chaînes opératoire,( →)

2.1 & 2.3 -Les techniques du corps (1935) and “Les techniques et la technologie” (1948) (U2-3)
With this paper Mauss introduced the new concept of body technique and at the same time laid the foundation of a concept of technique , which is original in comparison to the German discussion on Technik. Like all groundbreaking work, the 1935 paper creates many more problems than it solves. Gesture is not only the movement of the body, just as language is much more than the movement of air through the larynx. As a starting point, Mauss argues that the error of the past has been to think that there is a technique only when there is an instrument. Bodily techniques are effectively like techniques ,but do not use any instrument. Bodily techniques are a subset of techniques, which may be handled as social facts, that is as social institutions . « Les techniques du corps » is a widely read and discussed work (Farnell 1999, Crossley ), because it pointed towards a field of investigation previously overlooked, at least by ethnologists. A journal with the meaningful title of Body &Society has been recently founded (1995). ◄

2.1-Definition of bodily techniques (U2-4)
“J’appelle technique un acte traditionnel efficace (et vous voyez qu’en ceci il n‘est pas diffèrent de l’acte magique, religieux, symbolique) . Il faut qu’il soit traditionnel et efficace. Il n’y a pas de technique et pas de transmission, s’il n’y a pas de traditions. » Mauss (1935 ). According to Mauss, there is no natural way in which men use their bodies. Beginning with a number of concrete examples , Mauss tried to demonstrate cultural and historical influences on bodily activities (digging, swimming, walking, marching) and introduced the concept of habitus. ◄ Mauss, M., “Les techniques du corps”, Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique, 1935, 32, pp To download an electronic version of the 1935 paper see the following Url:

2.1-The concept of habitus (U2-5)
« J'ai donc eu pendant de nombreuses années cette notion de la nature sociale de l' « habitus ». Je vous prie de remarquer que je dis en bon latin, compris en France, «habitus». Le mot traduit, infiniment mieux qu' «habitude », l' « exis », l' « acquis » et la « faculté » d'Aristote (qui était un psychologue). Il ne désigne pas ces habitudes métaphysiques, cette « mémoire» mystérieuse, sujets de volumes ou de courtes et fameuses thèses. Ces «habitudes» varient non pas simplement avec les individus et leurs imitations, elles varient surtout avec les sociétés, les éducations, les convenances et les modes, les prestiges. Il faut y voir des techniques et l'ouvrage de la raison pratique collective et individuelle, là où on ne voit d'ordinaire que l'âme et ses facultés de répétition. « (Mauss 1935) “Le corps est le premier et le plus naturel instrument de l'homme. Ou plus exactement, sans parler d'instrument, le premier et le plus naturel objet technique, et en même temps moyen technique, de l'homme, c'est son corps…… Les techniques du corps sont bien « les façons dont les hommes, société par société, d'une façon traditionnelle, savent se servir de leur corps » (Mauss 1935). ◄

2.3-The 1948 definition of technique (U2-6)
The paper was Mauss’ last work. This paper is not much original with reference to his former works. However, the concept of technique is defined in a way , which fits well with his former concept of bodily techniques (Mauss 1935). «on appelle technique, un groupe de mouvements, d’actes, généralement et en majorité manuels, organisés et traditionnels, concourant à obtenir un but connu comme physique ou chimique ou organique”. Mauss 1948. The idea that techniques were instrumental by definition was a well known idea. Mauss firstly conceived bodily techniques as a a sub-set of instrumental techniques ( the instrument is the body itself). Secondly, Mauss assigned to the concept of technique the same sociological features typical of bodily techniques ◄

2.1.1-Five criticisms to the 1935 paper (U2-7)
The 1935 paper is not a standard Maussian work and has been severely criticised 1)-This paper is the transcription of an oral speech given in 1934 « Le texte publié par Marcel Mauss est, on le sait, la retranscription écrite d’une conférence donnée à la Société Française de Psychologie . Il porte la marque explicite de l’oralité…. Marcel Mauss choisit d’ouvrir sa conférence en revendiquant l’originalité personnelle de son discours, tenu à la première personne , son caractère ésotérique et, en proposant un long «récit de découverte» scientifique , débouchant sur l’anecdote de la « révélation » des techniques du corps,,,, » Leveratto ) Mauss’ biography by Fournier underlines that the transition from oral to written expression was becoming more and more difficult for Mauss in the 1930s ( 1994, p.699). 2)The separation of technique by other effective traditional acts is difficult or impossible from an emic point of view ( → ). ◄ 1999, B. Farnell “Moving Bodies , Acting selves” Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28, pp: 2006, Jean-Marc Leveratto »Lire Mauss. L’authentification des « techniques du corps » et ses enjeux épistémologiques” Le Portique, 17 , 2007, Nick Crossley “Researching embodiment by way of ‘body techniques’ The Sociological Review, pp

2.1.2-Five criticisms to the Mauss 1935 paper (U2-8)
3-Sources are wrongly mentioned i) a source is mentioned in a non-orthodox way; ii) the word «onioni» ( a Maoris way of female walking) is transformed into «onioi». 4- The concept of body technique is not well defined, «…instabilité épistémologique de la notion de techniques du corps – qui peut désigner selon les cas des actions physiques dirigées et contrôlées consciemment, des automatismes corporels, des moyens de communication non-verbale, etc…..C’est en ce sens que Marcel Mauss ne propose pas qu’une description scientifique de la notion de technique du corps mais fait ressentir à ses auditeurs et à ses lecteurs sa réalité sensible et sa valeur affective.» Leveratto 2006 5- The concept of body technique does not hold. “[The paper] forced to bear the weight of being the most complete expression of his interest in techniques, the piece just does not stand up. It turns out to be conceptually confused, methodologically unrealizable as a project, and not even sociological in any systematic sense – a dead end, in other words, which has deservedly led to no further work in this line.” (Hart 2008). 2008, Keith Hart Review Mauss, Marcel (ed. Nathan Schlanger). Techniques, technology and civilisation. « Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute , 14, 467-9 ◄

2.1-Summary : body techniques & the concept of technique (U2-9)
1-« -la juste compréhension ethnologique de la notion [ de techniques du corps]] suppose une modification radicale du concept de technique « à la fois en extension et en compréhension » (Leveratto 2006, Sèris 1994) 2-The historical separation of techniques & body techniques from ritual and magic is still waiting for a sociological theory. 3-According to Mauss, the phenomenon of technique is basically a social fact and in this sense it does not involve any relationships with the idea of “nature” 4-Les techniques du corps sont donc arbitraires ; autrement dit, elles sont «particulières à chaque société, au point d'en être signe» (Schlanger 1991) ◄ 1991 Nathan Schlanger, « Le fait technique total La raison pratique et les raisons de la pratique dans l'œuvre de Marcel Mauss » Terrain, 16 . 1994 Jean-Pierre Séris, La Technique, Paris, PUF, 1994, .

2.2-Manuel d’Ethnographie (1947) (U-10)
The Manuel d’Ethnographie, published in 1947, was made from notes taken during Mauss’ lectures by Denise Paulme. The different notes taken by his students do not converge on the effective content. However, the Manuel likely presents a picture of the nature of Mauss’ course, and gives indication of its scope. Its recent translation into English has been criticised (Atkinson 2008). 2008 ,Paul Atkinson, Manual of Ethnography – Edited by Marcel Mauss, The Sociological Review Volume 56, Issue 4, pages 699–700. 2004, Emmanuelle Sibeud ” Marcel Mauss :« Projet de présentation d’un bureau d’ethnologie » (1913) » Revue d'Histoire des Sciences Humaines, 10, pp 1972, James Urry “Notes and Queries on Anthropology" and the Development of Field Methods in British Anthropology, “, Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, pp The recipients of his lectures were scholars who became successively field anthropologists, but also administrators or colonists, who lacked professional training (for an account of the previous French and British anthropological directions until 1920 see Urry 1972). Mauss lectured “ethnographic field directions” since the beginning of his lectures at the École Pratiques des Hautes Études in the year ( Œuvres III, 354) , and successively in a more systematic way at the Institut d’Ethnologie from 1926 to 1939, soon after its foundation (1925)* *A former Maussian project (dated 1913) for the establishment of a Bureau of Ethnology failed ( Sibaud 2004). ◄

2.4-The foundation of the Institut d’Ethnologie (1925) (U2-11)
The aims of the lectures referred to « les méthodes de la recherche et de la description ethnographiques - les institutions des indigènes, en particulier, leurs langues, leurs religions, leurs coutumes, leurs techniques - leur histoire et leur archéologie - leurs caractères anthropologiques » (Marcel ,2004). Paris, Musée d’ Ethnologie au Trocadéro Mauss conceived ethnography as a descriptive science, and his course dealt both with what to observe and how to observe it. Mauss required the observer to be objective, and strangely, to fulfill an impossible duty, that is to record everything. The normative side of the directions is accompanied by a lack of any explicit anthropological theory in the Manuel d’ Ethnologie. 2004, Jean-Christophe Marcel, “Mauss au travail autour de 1925” L'Année sociologique, 54, 1, pp Section four of the Manuel is devoted to technology is important since it represents about one fifth of the entire book. At the beginning of section four, Mauss acknowledged that it is difficult to separate technical from aesthetical facts and technical facts from magic (for an introduction to this subject see → ) Mauss ‘ ideas of machine and of history of technology may be argued s see → ◄

2.5 –Durkheim’s Paradigm & technologie (U2-12)
Why was Mauss interested in techniques ? Three different determinants are observable: i) Mauss’ lectures on anthropology ; ii) Durkheim’s paradigm; iii) The American school of technology ( Powell & Mason) Durkheim’s “Morphologie et physiologie Sociale” is the conceptual basis on which the concept of technique lies. Social morphology ( Andrews 1993) and social physiology are two concepts introduced by Durkheim after a long re-working (Durkheim 1900); these were accepted by Mauss , still starting from his 1901 paper (Fauconnet & Mauss). The category social morphology has to do with social structure -the composition of the group, its internal organization, and its distribution in space- (today it could be called social ecology or social demography). Social physiology refers to the social facts that happen in the group: this comprises institutions and collective representations. By institution, Mauss and Fauconnet mean “a group of acts or ideas already instituted which individuals find before them”. Techniques may be defined as social institutions, and are located within the realm of social physiology. The plan of the lectures at the Institut d ‘Ethnologie mirrored the content of his 1927 paper “Divisions et proportions des divisions de la sociologie” ( Fournier 1994, pp ), which refers to the categories of social physiology and morphology . ◄ 1901,Paul Fauconnet , Marcel Mauss, «Sociologie», in La Grande Encyclopédie, Paris, Société anonyme de la grande encyclopédie, 1901, t. 30, pp , [OEuvres, III, pp ] 1900a Durkheim Emile « La sociologie et son domaine scientifique » version Française d’ un article publié en italien in Rivista italiana di sociologia , reproduit in Durkheim Textes Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1975, pp

2.6-Mauss is the heir of the American School of technology (U3-13)
Mauss can be considered the heir of the German and American «technology», but he became aware that these technological traditions had been weakened. «...[Mason & Powell] avaient proclamé que la technologie était une partie spéciale et très éminente de la sociologie. Ils l'avaient fait indépendamment des savants allemands, Bastian et ses élèves. Cette tradition s'était malheureusement affaiblie en Allemagne comme en Angleterre. » Mauss 1927, Œuvres III,195, 196 Mauss highly appreciated John Wesley Powell ( ) , as the “fondateur d'une technologie ethnographique “(1927 ,ibid.) and considered his work similar to Morgan, being Powell and Morgan « esprits profonds et originaux et, comment dirais-je, trop américains, ne peuvent être suivis qu'avec d'infinies précautions » (La Nation, 1920)*. This is likely due to the Powell’s foundation of the American Bureau of Ethnology. 1873, J. W. Powel l with a Paiute « chief » Bureau of American Ethnology Collection *Much later, Lowie disagreed and sustained that concerning social organization, Powell in no way advanced beyond Lewis H. Morgan. (1956) 1956, Robert Lowie,” Reminiscences of Anthropological Currents in America Half a Century Ago” American Anthropologist , 58, pp ) Section four of the Manuel d’Ethnologie mentions many scholars who published their works in the American Anthropologist or the Reports of the U. S. Bureau of Ethnology , that is: Otis Mason (basketry, traps, travel & transportation, but also on the influence of environment upon arts); Frank Hamilton Cushing (Pueblo pottery); Clark Wissler (horse in the development of Plains Culture ); Franz Boas (Eskimo, Kwakiutl and Jesup North Pacific Expedition) ◄

2.7-Lemonnier’s analysis of technology (U2-14)
There is no room in the present lecture to discuss the path of the French anthropology school of technology from Mauss to Lemonnier and the present debate via Leroi-Gourhan (see Coupaye 2009). Here it is sufficient to observe that Lemonnier develops the concept chaîne opératoire , and makes operative the concept of technique by means of five parameters: 2009, Ludovic Coupaye & Laurence Douny « Un état des lieux de l’anthropologie des techniques en France et en Grande-Bretagne » Techniques & Culture : pp 12-39 1992, Pierre Lemonnier, Elements for an Anthropology of technology, Ann Arbour, University of Michigan 1992. i) matter -the material on which the technique acts; ii) energy- the forces which move objects and transform matter *; iii) objects - artifacts, tools…; iv) gestures - they move the objects involved in a given technique; v) specific knowledge- it may be conscious or unconscious.. It is apparent that Lemonnier’s technology, being a meta-language which refers to techniques, involves sociological and physical parameters, showing once more that technology is an etic discipline which is located at the borders of natural and social sciences. Lemonnier’s frame handles a given technology and permits to focus three different levels: a) The relationships within the five parameters , when one is changed; b) The level of the relationships between different technologies; c) The relationships between a given technology and other social facts. ◄ *N.B.: Energy in physics Is the capacity of given body to do work., therefore force and energy are not synonymous.

CONCLUSIONS (U2-15) We are convinced that technology and technique are not linguistic variants of the same concept, but the first term refer to a logos which uses naturalistic and sociological categories and the second to an object firstly sociologically described by Marcel Mauss . Some advancements on the understanding of the couple technique/technology are due to : the efforts of the British Centre for Durkheimian Studies , which published some of the works by Mauss into English ; the presence of a strong and compact French anthropology, that always considered itself the heir of Marcel Mauss’ approach to techniques . By some recent papers ( see Schatzberg 2006 and Mitcham & Schatzberg 2009) ◄

Thank you for your attention
The End Thank you for your attention

(L-1) The set of terms and concepts used in the present lecture
For some of the following terms short definitions are given. FIRST ISSUE : Johann Beckmann: Technologie without technique SECOND ISSUE Marcel Mauss : technique without technologie The Meanings of the term Technologie before Beckmann & Beckmann’s meaning Emic & Etic The various Meanings of the term Technik Chaîne Opératoire Three linked concepts : Cameralism & Polizei & Wohlfartstaat Ritual Ideal type Two Marxian concepts: labour process & production process Magic legitime Herrschaft Historiography of technology Definition of Religion according to Durkheim Economics and “technology” in the Classical and Neoclassical schools of economics Culture German Nationalökonomie & Old historical school & Young historical school of economics Social institution Kinematic concept of machine

(L-2) The Crisis of Cameralism ( first half of 19° century): some determinants
Beckmann’s Technologie was a cameralist subject and entered into a crisis at the beginning of 19th- century with the crisis of Cameralism. Polizei was in the later seventeenth- and eighteenth-century German-speaking states a principle of social, normative and performative order, but not primarily coercive. On the meaning and legacy of Cameralism (see Tribe 1988 , Lindenfeld 1997, Wakefield 2009). According to Backhaus & Wagner (1987, 2005) Cameralism cannot be treated as an example of German Mercantilism. Change in the ideology iv) The ideology of the Cameralism , which refers to the well-ordered police state, was substituted by an another ideology leaning towards a conception of government by law and by a Kantian ideal of the person free from the paternalistic protection of the state. The crisis of Cameralism was due to : i) the Napoleonic wars; ii) the rise of new academic subjects called the sciences of the state (see Lindenfeld 1997, sections II and III) ; iii) the reception of the Wealth of Nations and the constitution of the Nationalökonomie *. Wilhelm Georg Friedrich Roscher ( ) is considered to be the founder of the old historical school of political economy , which established the Nationalökonomie as one the substitutes of Cameralism in the mid 19th century. Roscher attempted to supplement classical economics with historical material, to search for permanent laws of economic development ( see Tribe 1988, chapters 7-9) . *2008 Richard Bowler, “Mediating Creative Nature and Human Needs in Early German Political Economy” History of Political Economy 40:4, pp ◄

(L-3) -The meanings of Technologie from the beginning of the 17th century until Beckmann‘s Anleitung zur Technologie (1777) Source, 1978, Martin Füssel Die Begriffe Technik, Technologie, technische Wissenschaften und Polytechnik , Barbara Franzbecker, Bad Saltzdettfurt after Seibicke, W. Technik, Versuch einer Geschichte der Wortfamilie um τέχνη in Deutschland vom 16. Jahrhundert bis etwa 1830, VDI :Düsseldorf. ◄

(L-4) The Young Historical School : Engineers, economic sociology and Technik From Technologie → to Technik ( late 19th century) The late 19th century German sociology has lost the term Technologie but instead uses Technik, with a larger semantic field. The word Technik came to have so many meanings that it can no longer be precisely defined in a way that conforms its usage. Technik entered German social science (Simmel 1900, Sombart 1901, , 1911, Schmoller 1904 ) through the discourse of late 19° century German engineers ( see for example , Reuleaux 1884 and von Engelmeyer 1899 ). In Sombart’s Der moderne Kapitalismus, the concept of Technik plays a fundamental role . For the transition Technologie to Technik see Frison and Mitcham & Schatzberg 2009. 1884, Franz Reuleaux , "Kultur und Technik" Wochenschrift d. Niederösterr. Gewerbe-Vereins reprinted in n1925 Carl Weihe, Franz Reuleaux, und seine Kinematik , J. Springer, Berlin. 1899, P.eter K. von Engelmeyer “Allgemeine Fragen der Technik” Dinglers Polytechnisches Journal, , vols 311, 312, 313. 1900, Georg Simmel ˝Die Herrschaft der Technik „ in Philosophie des Geldes, Duncker & Humblot , Leipzig, pp , Gustav Schmoller , Grundriß der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre, 2 Teilen, München-Leipzig, Dunckler & Humblot, erster Teil 1900, zweiter Teil 1904. , Werner Sombart, Der moderne Kapitalismus. Historisch-systematische Darstellung des gesamteuropäischen Wirtschaftslebens von seinen Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Final edn. 1928, 1901, Werner Sombart,“ Technik und Wirtschaft „ Jahrbuch der Gehe-Stiftung zu Dresden, VII, pp 1911, Werner Sombart, „Technik und Kultur“ Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft, 33, pp 1998, Guido Frison “Some German and Austrian Ideas on Technologie and Technik between the end of the Eighteenth Century and the Beginning of the Twentieth”, History of Economic Ideas , VI, 1, pp 2009 Carl Mitcham and Eric Schatzberg “Defining Technology and The Engineering Sciences” in Dov M. Gabbay, Anthonie Meijers, Paul Thagard, John Woods (Eds.) Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, Elsevier pp Werner Sombart (1863 – 1941) ◄

(L-5) Technik and its meanings
Source: 1978 , Martin Füssl Die Begriffe Technik, Technologie , technische Wissenschaften und Polytechnik , Bad Salzdethfurth, p.6. Definitions may be of two types: a) & b). a) Essential definitions: they are also often called connotative or intensional, insofar as they specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be a member of a class. One example might be the claim that technology ( Technik) is the systematic human making of physical objects and/or the using of such objects: technology is human behavior (genus) involved with the systematic making or using of artifacts . b) Denotative or extensional (also enumerative) definitions,: these latter simply list all the members of the class. see 2009 Carl Mitcham and Eric Schatzberg ◄ Seibicke, W. Technik, Versuch einer Geschichte der Wortfamilie um τέχνη in Deutschland vom 16. Jahrhundert bis etwa 1830, VDI :Düsseldorf.

The second ideal-type is obtained by modifying Beckmann’s model
(L-6) - Pre-technological knowledge in the medieval scribal era The case of the manuscripts on dyes and pigments ( in short colours) The second ideal-type is obtained by modifying Beckmann’s model -One parameter, called the printing culture parameter, is added to Beckmann’s model in order to take account of the medium features and the social process, which transmits the written record. 2-Two parameters of Beckmann’s model are relaxed: 2.1- Variable three should be weakened. This links innovation , the ideology of the social actor interested in technological knowledge and the knowledge of the production process. 2.2. Variable four (a naturalistic description of the labour-process) is tenable only from the Anleitung zur Technologie on. So, we may have different kinds of pre-technological knowledge, that can be more or less associated with rituals and magic ideas. ◄

(L-7)- Pre-technological knowledge in the scribal era
(L-7)- Pre-technological knowledge in the scribal era. The case of the medieval manuscripts on colours The type of knowledge transmitted by the manuscripts on colours depends by the following parameters i) the kind of ruling relationship exerted on the production process; ii) the mechanisms of reproduction of the written record; iii) the specific cultural values of literacy. iv) The magnitude of the social distance between the worker and the writer of the manuscript. ◄

(L-8)- Pre-technological knowledge and literary activity
Six hypothesis regarding the Producers and the Recipients of the manuscripts on colours: According to the literature the mss on colours were written: 1 – by and for alchemists; 2 –by painters (artisan-artists) and for painters (artisan-artists); 3 – for specific patrons; 4 – by and for apothecaries; 5 – for guilds and corporations; 6 – for literary aims with either cultural-ideological objectives or for a given system of cultural-philosophical values, e.g. motivations of alchemic type or transmission of significant traditions, etc. ◄

(L-9) -Pre-technological knowledge and literary activity Oppenheim’s Hypothesis
6 – for literary aims with either cultural-ideological objectives or for a given system of cultural-philosophical values, e.g. motivations of alchemic type or transmission of significant traditions, etc. Available evidence show s that hypothesis No 6 is the most likely. The six different hypotheses quoted above may be traced back to one only, by means of Oppenheim‘s hypothesis. Oppenheim sustained that the clay tablets describing the glass production were the result of a literary activity. Similarly, the manuscripts on colours are likely the product of literary activity., above all those of early Middle Ages. For an overview see Tolaini, Tolaini, F. “Proposte per una metodologia di analisi di un ricettario di colori medievale”, in Il colore del Medioevo, Arte, simbolo e tecnica, Atti delle giornate di studi (Lucca, 5-6 maggio 1995), Lucca, 1996, pp Oppenheim, A. L. “The Cuneiform Texts ” in Oppenheim, A. L. ; Brill R. H.; Barag Von Saldern A. Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia, The Conning Museum of Glass Press: Corning , 2nd printing, 1988, pp ◄

(L-10) Emic & Etic The neologisms “emic” and “etic,” derive from an analogy with the terms “phonemic” and “phonetic,” ( the terms were coined by Kenneth Pike in 1954). The emic perspective refers to the intrinsic cultural distinctions , that are meaningful to the members of a given society . The etic perspective, relies upon the extrinsic concepts and categories that are meaningful for scientific observers : this corresponds to the phonetic analysis which relies upon the extrinsic concepts and categories that are meaningful to linguistics (e.g., dental fricatives). From an etic point of view , scientists are the sole judges of the validity of an etic account, just as linguists are the sole judges of the accuracy of a phonetic transcription. Literature 1954, Pike, K. L.. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structures of Human Behavior. part 1. Glendale, Calif.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. [Preliminary ed.]1976, 1976, Marvin Harris “History and Significance of the Emic/Etic Distinction “ Annual Review of Anthropology, 5 pp 1985, Kenneth E. Lloyd, “Behavioral Anthropology : a review of Marvin Harris' cultural materialism” Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 43 , pp ◄

(L-11)-The Chaîne Opératoire
“In its basic definition, the chaîne opératoire (literally ‘operational chain’ or ‘sequence’) refers to the range of processes by which naturally occurring raw materials are selected, shaped and transformed into usable cultural products.” Schlanger Nathan , in Bahn & Renfrew (2005) p. 18 . Literature 1964 , [1943–6] Leroi-Gourhan, A.. Le Geste et la parole, vol. 1: Technique et langage; vol. 2: La Mémoire et les rythmes. Paris: Albin Michel. (Translated in 1993 as Gesture and Speech by A.Bostock Berger. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.). 1975, Balfet, Hélène in“ Technologie ”, pp , in R. Cresswell (ed.), Éléments d’ethnologie, vol. 2. Paris : Armand Colin. 1988, Pfaffenberger, B. “Fetishised Objects and Humanised Nature: Toward an Anthropology of Technology.” Man 23:236–52. 1991, Balfet, Hélène (ed.).Observer l’action technique. Des chaînes opératoires, pour quoi faire ? Paris : Éditions du CNRS. 1992, Lemonnier, P.. Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Paper No. 88. Michigan: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. 2002, Audouze F. “Leroi-Gourhan, a Philosopher of Technique and Evolution”Journal of Archaeological Research, 10, 4, pp 2004, Pierre Lemonnier,” Mythiques chaînes opératoires” Techniques & Culture “, N ( see 2005 ,Colin Renfrew & Paul Bahn Archaeology: The Key Concepts, Routledge, London, New York. 2009, Ofer Bar-Yosef and Philip Van Peer “The Chaîne Opéatoire Approach in Middle Paleolithic Archaeology” Current Anthropology ,50, 1, pp ◄

(L-12) -Literature on Cameralism
The so-called academic Cameralism began in 1727 ; the teaching of Technologie began much later and lasted until the first half of the 19th century. For an overall interpretation of Cameralism see : 1988, Keith Tribe ,Governing Economy: The Reformation of German Academic Discourse , Cambridge U. P. 1997, David F. Lindenfeld The Practical Imagination: The German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century , University of Chicago Press. 2009, Andre Wakefield The Disordered Police State: German Cameralism as Science and Practice ,University of Chicago Press. i) from a sociological point of view: Small, A. W. The Cameralists. The Pioneers of German Social Polity, Chicago U. Press: Chicago, 1909. ii) as a political phenomenon : 1966, Maier H. Die ältere deutsche Staats- und Verwaltungslehre (Polizeiwissenschaft). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der politischen Wissenschaft in Deutschland, Luchterhand :Neuwied am Rhein-Berlin. 1977, Brückner, J. Staatswissenschaften, Kameralismus und Naturrecht, C.H. Beck: München,. 1968 ,Schiera, P. Dall'arte di Governo alle Scienze dello Stato. Il Cameralismo e l'assolutismo tedesco, Giuffrè: Milano. 19902 , Schiera, P. "Cameralismo", in Bobbio N., Matteucci N., Pasquino G. (Eds.) Dizionario di Politica, (1983); Utet :Torino,, pp iii) and as an economic doctrine 1977, Tribe, K. Governing Economy. The Reformation of German Economic Discourse , Cambridge U. Press: Cambridge, 1988. Brückner ; see above. iv) Backhaus a & .Wagner analyse the Cameralist Origins of Continental Public Finance and polemize against the interpretation of Cameralism as a kind of Mercantilism 1987, Jürgen Backhaus and Richard E. Wagner, Public “ The Cameralists: A Public Choice Perspective “Public Choice, Vol. 53, 1, pp 2005, Jürgen G. Backhaus and Richard E.Wagner “From Continental Public Finance to Public Choice: Mapping Continuity” History of Political Economy , 37(Suppl 1): v) On the origin of the Cameralism stricto sensu see Schiera 1990, Tribe 1988: 66, 74-5 ( see above ). ◄

(L-13) -Weber’s Legitime Herrschaft & ideal type
A Weberian model is an ideal type, whose validity can be ascertained only in terms of adequacy, and whose goal is to permit comparisons between different historical cases. . Beckmann’s model is an ideal type According to Weber, legitimate domination (Legitime Herrschaft) is a more consistent form of power relationship compared to the Macht, a term usually translated with power. Macht is a relatively timeless and space-less sociological type. Legitimate Herrschaft, unlike Macht, allows for a high level of probability that a command with a specific content will be obeyed by a given group of persons, because it is associated with voluntary compliance, belief in legitimacy and a sustained relationship of subordination. ◄

(L-14) -Weber, the sociology of domination & legitime Herrschaft
“The precise translation of Macht and Herrschaft is contested: these terms entered into usage as power and authority respectively . While there is a little controversy surrounding the translation of Macht as power , there is considerable dissent surrounding the translation of Herrschaft as authority that was initiated by Parsons and Henderson in their edition of the Theory of social and economic organization (Weber 1947). Later translators do not follow this lead but instead translate Herrschaft either as “rule” or as “domination” depending on the context of translation” Wallimann et al Cohen et al. (1975a, 1975b) appropriately distinguish between Herrschaft and legitimate Herrschaft. The three parameters that distinguish legitimate Herrschaft are: i) Voluntary compliance or obedience: individuals are not forced to obey, but do so voluntarily, because they have an interest in doing so, or at least believe that they have such an interest. ii) Belief in the legitimacy of the actions of the dominant individual or group is likely. iii) Compliance or obedience is a sustained relationship of subordination so that regular patterns of inequality are established. . 1947 Max Weber: The Theory of Social and Economic Organization translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons edited with an introduction by Talcott Parsons New York,Oxford University Press 1975a, Cohen Jere, Hazelrigg E. Lawrence, Pope Whitney, “De-Parsonizing Weber: A Critique of Parsons' Interpretation of Weber's Sociology” American Sociological Review, 40, 2, pp 1975b, Cohen Jere, Hazelrigg E. Lawrence, Pope Whitney, “Reply to Parsons” American Sociological Review, 40, 5, pp 1977, Wallimann Isidor, Tatsis Ch. Nicholas, Zito V. George “On Max Weber's Definition of Power” Australia and new Zealand Journal of Sociology ,13, pp ◄

(L-15) -Literature on Linnaeus and his relationship with Beckmann
On the intellectual relationship between Linnaeus and Beckmann and on the origin of Technologie see i) 1993, Frison, G. “Linnaeus, Beckmann, Marx and the Foundation of Technology. Between natural and social Sciences: a Hypothesis of an Ideal Type - First part: Linnaeus and Beckmann, Cameralism, Oeconomia and Technologie”, History and Technology,, 3: ii) 1999 Meyer, T. Natur, Technik und Wirtschaftswacstum im 18. Jahrhundert, Waxmann, Cottbuser Studien zur Geschichte der Technik, Arbeit und Umwelt, Bd. 12,: Münster, see chapters 4-5, and the literature quoted therein. iii) For a different interpretation of the Linnaeus-Beckmann relationship see 1997, Müller, H.-P. “Denksatz und Wirkungsgeschichte von Beckmanns „Entwurf der algemeinen Technologie“ in Banse G. (Ed.) Allgemeine Technologie zwischen Aufklärung und Metatheorie, Sigma:Berlin, pp iv) Linnaeus - Beckmann correspondence is available in 1916, Bref och skrifvelser af och till Carl von Linnè (Hulth, J. M. Ed.), Uppsala- Berlin Afd. II, Del. 1: v) Linnaeus’s economic ideas were rarely systematic, but their role in his taxonomic research program have been stressed by Koerner, L. Linnaeus: Nature and Nation Harvard U.Press: Cambridge (Mass.). Linnaeus’s economics should not be understood with today’s point of view on economic behaviour, but as a science of natural products and their use values. . ◄

(L-16) - Literature on Beckmann
Beckmann was a Linnaeus’s pupil, a botanist, an erudite and connoisseur of classical languages, a cameralist and an eminent professor of the Göttingen University. Beckmann is recorded as a biologist by Wagenitz (1988, pp 22-23). He is quoted by historians of the science of politics as a cameralist (Lindenfeld, 1997, pp 29-33). Beckmann’s Physikalisch-ökonomisch Bibliothek (23 vols. Göttingen ) is often quoted by art historians, and his Beyträge zur Geschichte der Erfindungen (Leipzig ) are still a valuable source for historians of technology.. - v) For a short biography see 1970, Klemm, F. "Beckmann, Johann", in Gillespie, C. Coulston (Ed.), Dictionary of Scientific Biography, C. Scribner's Sons :New York , 1, pp Beckmann as a „biologist“, see 1988, Wagenitz, G. Göttinger Biologen , Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen,. For current studies on Beckmann: i) 1992, Hans-Peter Müller, Ulrich Troitzsch, (Eds.) Technologie zwischen Fortschritt und Tradition, Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main. ii) 1999, Bayerl, G.; Beckmann, J. (Eds) Johann Beckmann (1739–1811) Beiträge zu Leben, Werk und Wirkung des Begründers der Allgemeinen Technologie, Waxmann, Cottbuser Studien zur Geschichte von Technik, Arbeit und Umwelt, Bd. 9: Münster. iii) 1999, Meyer, T. “Johann Beckmann-Bibliographie“ Bayerl G., Beckmann J. (Hrsg.) Johann Beckmann (1739–1811) Beiträge zu Leben, Werk und Wirkung des Begründers der Allgemeinen Technologie, Waxmann, Cottbuser Studien zur Geschichte der Technik, Arbeit und Umwelt Bd. 9; Münster, pp 2007, Bayerl, G. “Die Anfänge der Technikgeschichte bei Johann Beckmann und Johann Heinrich Moritz von Poppe“ in König W., Schneider H. (Eds.), Die technikhistorische Forschung in Deutschland von 1800 bis zur Gegenwart, Kassel U. Press: Kassel, pp . vi) Meyer gives a bibliographic overview of the author; 1999, Meyer, T. “Johann Beckmann-Bibliographie“ Bayerl G., Beckmann J. (Eds.) Johann Beckmann (1739–1811) Beiträge zu Leben, Werk und Wirkung des Begründers der Allgemeinen Technologie, Waxmann, Cottbuser Studien zur Geschichte der Technik, Arbeit und Umwelt Bd. 9; Münster, pp ◄

(L-17) Literature on Taylor ’s technology
1-On tool working machines: Taylor studied the relationships between speed, feed, tool geometry, and machining performance in a research programme that lasted 26 years and ended in his famous ASME 1907 paper, see 1997, Stephenson, D. A. ; Agapiou, J. S. Metal Cutting Theory and Practice Marcel Dekker:New York, 2006, Astakhov, V. P. “An opening historical note.” Int. J. Machining and Machinability of Materials, 1: 3-11. 2-Taylor’s equation: Taylor’ s equation that links the cutting speed and tool life, known today as the Taylor’s tool life equation, is still widely used (Astakhov 2006:4-5; Merchant 1998). 1998Merchant, M. E. “An Interpretative Look at 20th Century Research on Modeling of Machining” Machining Science and Technology, 2: 3- Taylor’s technological papers were devoted to Siemens producers, to belting and to cutting metal machining. Taylor secured many patents, especially the well known ones on high- speed tools, the steam hammers and other tool machines (Kanigel 1997). 1997, Kanigel, R. The One Best Way, Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency, Viking :New York,. 4-From a sociological perspective, Taylor’s role represents the transition from a phase of institutionalization to a phase of professionalization of the technologist, who played the role of engineer and manager. Taylor’s work is an example of engineering practices in nineteenth-century America. These developed in the period into a complex system of management and a kind of organization theory determined by at least three interacting forces : i) the professionalization process of mechanical engineers ; ii) the Progressive period ( ) and its rhetoric on professionalism, equality, order, and progress; iii) labor unrest (see Shenhav, 1995). ◄

(L-18) Literature on Taylor ’s technology
5- From the point of view of organisation theory see : 1995, Shenhav Y. “ From Chaos to Systems: The Engineering Foundations of Organization Theory, ” Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, N 4, pp 6-Taylor’s ideology: according to Taylor, Scientific Management should restore social harmony in the interests of the whole people and render politics obsolete ( see 1993, Frison, G. “Tra storia, scienze sociali e tecnologia: per una interpretazione dell’opera di F. W. Taylor” Rivista di Storia Contemporanea, 2-3 : ). 7-Kanigel’ s biography balances preceding biographies and displays his technological work: 1997, Kanigel, R. The One Best Way, Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency, Viking :New York. 8-For an annotated bibliography of Taylor see Cowan (2000, vol. 1:15-70), 2000, Cowan, A. R. “Annotated Bibliography” in Wood J.C.; Wood M. C. (Eds.) F. W. Taylor: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management , Routledge: London, 1, pp 9-For an evaluation of Taylor’s legacy from the point of view of bussiness and management see : 2000, Wood, J.C. , Wood M. C. (Eds) F. W. Taylor: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management , Routledge :London, 3 vols. ◄

(L-19) Literature on Marx’s Technologie
1986, Frison, G. "Le diverse e artificiose macchine di Marx " in AAVV, Attualità di Marx, Unicopli: Milano, pp 1989, Frison, G. “Technical and Technological Innovation in Marx" History and Technology, 4: 1992, Frison, G. "Smith, Marx and Beckmann: division of labour, Technology and Innovation", in Müller H.-P.; Troitzsch U. (editors) Technologie zwischen Fortschritt und Tradition, Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main-Bern-New York-Paris, pp 1993a, Frison, G. “Linnaeus, Beckmann, Marx and the Foundation of Technology. Between natural and social Sciences: a Hypothesis of an Ideal Type - First part: Linnaeus and Beckmann, Cameralism, Oeconomia and Technologie”, History and Technology, 3: 1993b, Frison, G. “Second and third Part: “Beckmann and Marx. Technologie and Classical Political Economy”, History and Technology, 3: , Marx, K. Capital , translated from the third German edition by Moore S.; Aveling E. and edited by Engels F., Lawrence & Wishart: London, 3 vols. , Marx, K. Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Manuskript ), MEGA II, Bd.3 ,Teil 1-6, Dietz Verlag : Berlin,. 1985, Marx, K., Engels F., Collected Works, v. 41, Progress Publishers: Moscow,. 1982, Marx, K. Die technologisch-historischen Exzerpte, Müller, H.-P (Ed.), Ullstein: Frankfurt/Main-Berlin-Wien. ◄

(L-20)- Literature on the various concepts of technology
For some authors, technology refers to the generic activity of the genus Homo of producing and using means of labour (White, 1940 and Singer, ), and for others, the term art is synonymous with technology (see for example Eamon 1983, and Newman 1989). For an overview of the concept of technology see Morère (1966), Hall A. R. (1978), Sebestik (1983), Salomon (1984), Guillerme (1984), For an etymological approach to the family of words deriving from τέχνη see Heyde (1963), Seibicke (1968). A wide set of definitions of technology is given by Beaune (1980) , who quotes 46 definitions of technology , 41 of which were proposed after the Anleitung zur Technologie (1980: ). See also Füssel (1978) for an overview of the linguistic use of the pair Technik/Technologie in German speaking area and Schatzberg (2006) for the English-American area. 1940, White, L. Jr. “Technology and Invention in the Middle Ages” Speculum, 2, pp 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1958, 1978, 1978.Singer, C. et al. (Eds) A History of Technology , Oxford U. Press: New York and London. 1966, Morère, J.-E. “Les vicissitudes du sens de technnologie au debut du dixneuvième siècle.” Thalès, 12, pp 1978, Hall, A. R. " On Knowing , and on Knowing how to.... " History of Technology, III, pp 1978, Martin Füssel, Die Begriffe Technik, Technologie, technische Wissenschaften und Polytechnik , Barbara Franzbecker, Bad Saltzdettfurt 1980, Beaune, J-C. La Technologie Introuvable, Vrin :Paris,. 1983, Eamon, W. "Technology as Magic in the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance" Janus, 70, pp 1983, Sebestik, J. “The Rise of the Technological Science” History and Technology I, pp 1984, Guillerme, J. "Le liens du sens dans l'histoire de la technologie" Cahiers S.T.S. 2 , pp 1984, Salomon, J.-J. " What is Technology ? The issue of its origin and Definitions.“ History and Technology,1, pp 1989 , Newman W.“Technology and Alchemical Debate in the Late Middle Ages “ Isis, 80, 3 , pp 2005, R. Kline. “Constructing Technology as ‘Applied Science’: Public Rhetoric of Scientists and Engineers in the United States, ” Isis, vol. 86, pp 2006, Schatzberg E. Technik Comes to America Changing Meanings of Technology Before 1930” Technology and Culture, pp 2009 Carl Mitcham and Eric Schatzberg “Defining Technology and The Engineering Sciences” in Dov M. Gabbay, Anthonie Meijers, Paul Thagard, John Woods (Eds.) Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, Elsevier pp Philology and Etimology 1963, Jolis Erich Heyde “Zur Geschichte des Wortes “Technik”” Humanismus und Technik, , 9, 1, pp Seibicke, W. Technik, Versuch einer Geschichte der Wortfamilie um τέχνη in Deutschland vom 16. Jahrhundert bis etwa 1830, VDI :Düsseldorf, ◄

(L-21)- Literature on Technik and Technikphilosophie
Quite always the topic of Technik, has been discussed in the German literature within the frame of dichotomies such as Zivilisation/Kultur, Zivilisation/Leben, Geist/Seele, which developed later into an ideology which proposed a reconciliation between the antimodernist, romantic, irrationalist ideas and the modern Technik . A sui generis Philosophie der Technik of German flavor originated from this discussion . After the Weimar Republic , the debate on Technik turned into a reactionary political orientation and a fully-edged acceptance of Technik, defined by historian “Reactionary modernism “( Herf 1984; Rohkrämer, 1999 ). Philosophie der Technik 1877, Enrst Kapp, Grundlinien einer Philosophie der Tecknik: zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Cultur aus neuen Gesichtspunkten, Braunschweig. 1914, Eberhard Zschimmer, Philosophie der Technik vom Sinn der Technik und Kritik des Unsinns über die Technik, Jena: Diederichs. 1927, Friedrich Dessauer, Philosophie der Technik Bonn. Reactionary Modernism 1984, Jeffrey Herf “The Engineer as Ideologue: Reactionary Modernists in Weimar and Nazi Germany”, Journal of Contemporary History, 19, 4, pp 1999, Thomas Rohkrämer “Antimodernism, Reactionary Modernism and National Socialism. Technocratic Tendencies In Germany, ” Contemporary European History, 8, 1, pp Philology and Etimology Seibicke, W. Technik, Versuch einer Geschichte der Wortfamilie um τέχνη in Deutschland vom 16. Jahrhundert bis etwa 1830, VDI :Düsseldorf, pp ◄

(L-22) - Literature on Mauss
1947, Mauss Marcel, Manuel d’ethnographie, Paris, Payot. Engl. Transl. Manual of Ethnography edited and introduced by N.J. Allen, Durkheim Press/Berghahn, Oxford, 2007 1950, Mauss Marcel, Sociologie et anthropologie, with an « Introduction to the « l’Œuvre de Marcel Mauss » by Claude Lévi-Strauss, Paris, Puf. 1968, Mauss Marcel., Œuvres 1. Les fonctions sociales du sacré, Introduction by Victor Karady, Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit. 1969, Mauss Marcel Œuvres 2, Représentations collectives et diversité des civilisations, Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit. 1969a, Mauss Marcel, Œuvres 3, Cohésion sociale et divisions de la sociologie, Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit. 1993, Howard H. Andrews “Social Morphology” in Stephen P. Turner (ed.) Emile Durkheim : sociologist and moralist , London New York , pp 1994 Fournier Marcel, Marcel Mauss. Paris, Fayard. 1996, Mauss, M. ‘‘L’œuvre de Marcel Mauss par lui- même’’, Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales XXXIV(105), pp. 225–236. 1997, Mauss, M. Ecrits politiques. Marcel Fournier and Phillippe Besnard (eds.) Paris: Fayard. 1997, Frison, G. “Per una teoria sociologica della tecnologia e dei fatti tecnici: un confronto fra Mauss e Weber” La Critica Sociologica, :18-37. 1998, P. Besnard et M. Fournier (eds.) Durkheim Émile, Lettres à Marcel Mauss. Paris: PUF. 2003, Mauss, Marcel On Prayer. Oxford & New York : Berghahn. Translation of Mauss Marcel 1909. La Prière. Paris : Alcan. Mauss , Œuvres 1 : 2009, Marcel Mauss , Techniques, Technology and Civilization, with an Introduction by Nathan Schlanger, the Durkheim Press-Bargahan Books, New York-Oxford . ◄

(L-23)-The separation of the production process from other social facts
iii) It seems impossible to define the concept of labour process for non-capitalistic or for non-modern societies: in these latter the separation of magic from technical acts appear difficult or impossible from an emic point of view) ( →) . ii) When the production is subsumed by capital and the labour-process is submitted to “real subsumption by capital”( Marx), then this set of social relationships becomes a scene, where social facts and naturalistic descriptions of the labour-process meet each other. This is due to the conscious action of the entrepreneur. The naturalistic descriptions of the labour process takes the form of prescriptions which become compulsory thanks to the competition of the various entrepreneurs, who operate on the same market. i) Only when the production process becomes socially separated from other social phenomena , then, it may be described technologically. that is , as a natural process , where the worker may be considered absent ( Marx). However, western pre-technological literature begins much earlier than the Anleitung zur Technologie. ◄

(L-24)- Economics and “technology” in the classical School of Economics 1/2
Economists have been acutely aware of the fact that increases in the productivity of a representative bundle of inputs account for the bulk of aggregate economic growth. In this way they rationalize this phenomenon with the concept of technology, and erroneously apply this concept to authors who never used this concept. But the term “technology” is not similar to the term “gravity” which may be applied to Aristotelian physics too. Adam Smith (1723 – 1790) i) The issues raised by rapid industrialization, were not ignored by British economists, who handled the dramatic changes of the Industrial Revolution by using terms such as useful arts, machinery , invention and industry. The pair technique/technology is absent in their vocabulary, however modern economists handle Adam Smith’s division of labour as a case of technology David Ricardo too, did not use the concepts of technique or technology when he argued Malthus’ tendency toward stagnation. Instead, he underlined that the improvement of machinery and the increasing skill in art and science counterbalanced this tendency. David Ricardo (1772 – 1823) ◄

(L-25)- Neoclassical economics and technology 2/2
An example of the concept of technology used by economists : the production function by Wicksteed‘s Co-ordination of the Laws of Distribution (1894). ii) In neoclassical economic theory, the formulation of technology has a long history, going back at least to Wicksteed, who, in his “The Co-ordination of the Laws of Distribution” (1894, p. 52), states his central premise as follows: ‘The Product being a function of the factors of production we have P = f(a.b.c, )’. This abstract way of representing the recipe for a production process has not changed in its essentials since then. It is repeated without limit or significant variation in countless economic texts . However , Wicksteed’s paper does not use the concepts of technique or technology, as does presend standard neoclassical economic. Wicksteed’s main aim was to establish the law of the redistributions of revenues between the factors of production Philip Henry Wicksteed (1844 –1927) See to download his 1894 paper iii) The 20th century American-English term technology comes from the translation of the German Technik (Eric Schatzberg, “Technik Comes to America: Changing Meanings of Technology before 1930 “Technology and Culture -, 47, 3, 2006, pp ). ◄

(L-26) -The separation of techniques from ritual and magic
Referring to the magic ( Esquisse 1904), ritual ( La prière 1909) , instrumental techniques , bodily techniques (techniques du corps) and aesthetics ( Manuel d’Ethnologie 1947) Mauss utilized the same formula « actes traditionnel efficaces » . All these five social facts implicate know-how, dexterity and all these are socially transmitted by the tradition. Mauss was completely aware that the differences between these social acts should be evidenced, by different presuppositions on efficacy. In fact, the real problem is the meaning given to the term effectivity, because nobody criticises the concept of act , neither the fact that the act is traditional (inscribed within a tradition) . Mauss proposed different criteria to distinguish: the ritual from other types of social acts by underlining that ritual efficacy was of a sui generis type ( “On Prayer”) ; technique from magic, on the basis of the fact that the consequences of a technical act were homogeneous with the means used in the act itself. ◄ 1904 , Marcel Mauss & Henri Hubert «Esquisse d’une théorie générale de la magie», L’Année Sociologique , 7, pp1-146. 1909 , Marcel Mauss, La Prière. I. Les origines ,die vertraulich von Fauteur verteilt wurde, 176 Seiten. [OEuvres, I, S ]

(L-27)- -The separation of techniques from ritual and magic
Ritual efficacy VS technique efficacy ( Mauss 1909) According to Mauss, ,this difference lies in the manner in which the efficacy is conceived « Donc, c'est en considérant non pas l'efficacité en elle-même, mais la manière dont cette efficacité est conçue que nous pourrons trouver la différence spécifique. Or, dans le cas de la technique, l'effet produit est censé provenir tout entier du travail mécanique effectif. Et cela d'ailleurs a bon droit, car justement l'effort de la civilisation a en partie consisté à réserver aux techniques industrielles et aux sciences sur lesquelles elles reposent, cette valeur utile que l'on attribuait autrefois aux rites et aux notions religieuses. Au contraire, dans le cas de la pratique rituelle, de toutes autres causes sont censées intervenir auxquelles est imputé tout le résultat attendu. L'efficacité prêtée au rite n'a donc rien de commun avec l'efficacité propre des actes qui sont matériellement accomplis. Elle est représentée dans les esprits comme tout a fait sui generis, car on considère qu'elle vient tout entière de forces spéciales que le rite aurait la propriété de mettre en jeu. » Marcel Mauss 1909 , La Prière emphasis added by the present author. For Mauss, rites are actions ; they are traditional actions, and are effective, in that they achieve material ends. A rite is therefore an effective traditional action of sui generis kind. ◄

(L-28) -Is magic separable from techniques ?
Critique of the Maussian criterion concerning technique effectiviness « ….on ne peut pas comme le fait Mauss parler d’une efficacité « sentie par l’auteur comme d’ordre mécanique, physique ou physico-chimique » en dehors des sociétés de l’Occident moderne où il existe des sciences physiques —sauf à tomber dans l’ethnocentrisme. « (Sigaut ) 2003, François Sigaut « La formule de Mauss Efficacité technique, efficacité sociale », Techniques & Culture 40, pp. . 1995, Belier, Wouter W. “Critique the Maussian criterion of technique efficacy”, Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 7, 2, 1995 , pp 1985, Van Baal, Jan - Wouter E. A. van Beek . Symbols for Communication. Assen: Van Gorcum Is it possible to separate magic from religion ? According to van Baal & Van Beek (1985: 111), the "distinction between magic and religion made by our authors [Mauss & Hubert] is far from satisfactory, and the overall trend of their discussion is to present magic as a by-product of religion. In conclusion we feel justified in stating that, all things considered, Hubert and Mauss offered better arguments in favour of accepting magic as a form of religion than in support of the strict contrast on which they founded their comments." For the reconstruction of the various criteria adopted by Durkheim and his school to separate magic from religion see Belier 1995. ◄

(L-29) -Is ritual separable from other efficacious and traditional acts?
The definition of ritual has long been debated ; simplifying, we can affirm that at least two approaches to rituals exist, the cognitive and the Durkheimian type*, because a belief in the supernatural and the separation between sacred and non-sacred things are involved : Cognitive: by applying to religious events cognitive theories of religious rituals some scholars show that religious thought and action turn overwhelmingly on harnessing perfectly ordinary forms of cognition available to all normally equipped human beings. This approach does not agree with Mauss ‘ criterion. Compatible with Durkheim ’s definition of religion: for other scholars rituals may be regarded as a subclass within religious events. For example baptism is a religious ritual because an agent (the priest) acts (sprinkles water) upon a patient (an infant) for God to accept the child as part of the Church. This approach is apparently compatible with Mauss ‘ criterion. *For Durkheim, a religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things that unite into one single moral community all those who adhere to them. ◄

(L-30)- A criticique to Mauss’ concept of machine
A further limitation of Mauss‘ analysis is the reception of Reuleaux’s concept of machine which is of kinematic type *. Reuleaux is considered the father of kinematic analysis and is likely the greatest of the machine theorists of the 19th century. However, kinematics does not permit the evaluation of the digital computer, for which the algorithmic concept of machine fits better (for example, the Turing machine) . Sociologically, Mauss‘ concept of machine does not permit a fruitful comparison with literature Industrial Revolution and the effects of the introduction of machinery in the modern factory system ( see for example the classical works by Andrew Ure (see Ure 1835) or Karl Marx in Das Kapital) ◄ *( Reuleaux is erroneously mentioned in Mauss 1947 with the name Reuleau) Franz Reuleaux (1829 – 1905) Reuleaux’s definition: a machine is a kinematic chain of constrained elements , that is " a combination of resistant bodies so arranged that by their means the mechanical forces of nature can be compelled to do work accompanied by certain determinate motions." Andrew Ure ( 1778 – 1857) Alan Turing ( 1912 – 1954)) 1835, Andrew Ure, The Philosophy of Manufactures, or an Exposition of the Scientific, Moral and Commercial Economy of the Factory System of Great Britain,.London: Charles Knight. 1875 Franz Reuleaux Theoretische Kinematik; Grundzüge einer Theorie des Maschinenwesens, Verlag Vieweg & Sohn Braunschweig.

(L-32) - A critique to Mauss’ Historiography of technology .
Mauss’ approach to technology of non-literate cultures appears systematic but mainly descriptive. However, he erroneously affirmed that “L'histoire de la technologie est une histoire récente » (Mauss 1947), forgetting in such a way that modern history of technology began with Beckmann’s Beyträge zur Geschichte der Erfindungen (5 vols ) and with his most important follower, Johann H. M. von Poppe( ; see Bayerl 2007) . German tradition continued with the works of in the second half of the 19th century with Karl Karmarsch, Franz Reuleaux and Theodor Beck ( see Lackner 2007). At the beginning of the 20th century ( 1903) the Deutsches Museum was founded: it is today the most important European Museum devoted to the History of technology. ◄ H. M. von Poppe, Geschichte der Technologie seit der WiederhersteUung der Wissenschaften an das Ende des 18 Jahrhundert, 3 vols. Gottingen. 2007, Günter Bayerl „ Die Anfänge der Technikgeschichte bei Johann Beckmann und Johann Heinrich Moritz von Poppe“ in Wolfgang König, Helmuth Schneider (Eds.), Die technikhistorische Forschung in Deutschland , kassel University Press , Kassel, pp 2007, Helmut Lackner „ Von der Geschichte der Technik zur technikgeschichte . Die erste Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts“ in Wolfgang König, Helmuth Schneider (Eds.), Die technikhistorische Forschung in Deutschland , kassel University Press , Kassel pp 35-62

(L-33) At the end of the Unit 1, one should be able to evaluate the main lines of the following points: ai )the features of Cameralism aii) the causes of Cameralism decline and the fall of the Nineteenth-century Technologie aiii) Beckmann ‘s model of Technologie . b) Economics: Karl Marx and the introduction of Beckmann’s concept of Technologie onto the classical production theory. c) Epistemology: the pre-paradigmatic nature of the discussion concerning the couple technique/technology. d) Economics, black boxes and technology: the example of Wicksteed ◄

(L-34) At the end of the Unit 2 , one should be able to evaluate the main lines of the following points : Magic, technical acts and rituals : in which conditions can they be separated ? Emic and etic point of view ( →) a) How Mauss came to give special emphasis to techniques and technology in his teaching and writing, suggesting that, they should be a major preoccupation of ethnography. b) Mauss’ three main papers, that handle the couple tecnique / technologie and the relationships of this pair with Durkheim’s sociology and the body. c) An operative concept of technique : Lemonnier and his anthropological analysis of technology; Maori women ◄

(L-35)-American anthropology between 1880 and 1920
1974. Stocking, G.W. Jr. (Ed.) The Shaping of American Anthropology, : A Franz Boas Reader. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1977, Regna “Darnell History of anthropology Historical Perspective ”.Ann. Rev. Anthropol., 6, pp 1981, Hinsley, C.M. Jr. Savages and Scientists: The Smithsonian Institution and the Development of American Anthropology Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press 1994, Curtis M. Hinsley, The Smithsonian and the American Indian: Making a Moral Anthropology in Victorian America. Washington, D.C.. 1 1999, Richard B. Woodbury and Nathalie F. S. Woodbury “The Rise and Fall of the Bureau of American Ethnology “Journal of the Southwest, 41, 3, pp 2002, David R. Wilcox and Don D. Fowler “ The Beginnings of Anthropological Archaeology in the North American Southwest: From Thomas Jefferson to the Pecos Conference Journal of the Southwest, 44, 2, pp 2006, Thomas Carl Patterson A social history of anthropology in the United States, Berg, Oxford-New York. 1996, George W. Stocking, Volksgeist as method and ethic: essays on Boasian ethnography and the German Tradition Madison : University of Wisconsin Press. 2005, Fredrik Barth et alii, One discipline, four ways: British, German, French, and American anthropology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2009, Michael Brian Schiffer, “Ethnoarchaeology, Experimental Archaeology, and the“American School” Ethnoarchaeology, 1, 1 , pp. 7–26. ◄

(L-36) A map of the scientific discussion of the couple technique/technologie
If one would describe a map of the scientific discussion on the couple technique & technology, then a subdivision in various disciplinary fields would appear, and this would separate from the different national traditions. For example, the anthropological tradition of techniques is mainly French; and the Technikphilosophie is eminently German. Rarely the disciplinary approaches, the national traditions and the operative definitions have been compared by scholars. A sociological model should permit an initial comparison of the disjecta membra of the discussion. ◄

Literature of the two Issues
◄ Concepts Literature Weber and the sociology of domination & Ideal type Emic & Etic The separation of ritual from from other effective acts A A map of the scientific discussion of the couple technique/technologie Literature on Linnaeus & his relationships with Beckmann Literature on Cameralism The Chaîne Opératoire The separation of the production process from other social facts Literature on Beckmann Literature on Marx’s Technologie A critique to Mauss’ machine The separation of techniques from ritual and magic American anthropology between 1880 and 1920 Economics and technolo-g y: 3 examples Is magic separable from techniques ? Literature on Technik and Technikphilosophie Historiography of technology The meanings of Technik The crisis of Cameralism Literature on Mauss Literature on Taylor’s technology The meanings of Technologie until 1777 Medieval pre-technological knowledge and the scribal era Literature on the various concepts of technology The competences to be acquired at the end of t Unit Unit 2 The Young Historical School : Engineers and Technik

Technique, Technology and their relationship with the Body (A sociological theory on a very strange couple). Guido Frison Rome, May 2011 . A workshop.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Technique, Technology and their relationship with the Body (A sociological theory on a very strange couple). Guido Frison Rome, May 2011 . A workshop."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Technique, Technology and their relationship with the Body (A sociological theory on a very strange couple). Guido Frison Rome, May 2011 . A workshop.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Technique, Technology and their relationship with the Body (A sociological theory on a very strange couple). Guido Frison Rome, May 2011 . A workshop."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback