Lewis Mumford and the Organicist Concept in Social Thought

Author(s): Robert Casillo

Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1992), pp. 91-116
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709912 .
Accessed: 18/10/2014 10:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Lewis Mumfordand the
OrganicistConcept in
Social Thought
RobertCasillo

One of thebest-known twentieth-century exponentsof social organi-

cism,Lewis Mumfordhas wovenmanyofthesturdiest strandsoforgani-
cist thought-classical,medieval,and modem-into a complexwhole.
Throughouthis careerhe has emphasizedthe importanceof the family
and neighborhoodas indispensablecomponentsof a genuinelyorganic
social life.At the same timehis visionof the ideal societyembracesa
balancedor "organic"relationship notonlywithitsnaturalenvironment
butalso withitsmaterialand technological apparatus.To speakinbroader
terms,Mumfordhas soughtto definea versionof social organicism
which-by allowingforindividual,local,and regionalautonomy, a diver-
sityofcompeting interests, of
and thepossibility historicaldevelopment-
escapesthechargeoftenlevelledbybothleftists and liberalsagainstsocial
organicistthinking: thatis, thatit assumesthe priorityof the collective
overtheindividualand thusleadsinevitably to a falselynormative totality
characterizedby a centralizedauthoritariangovernment and a static,
hierarchical organization-inshort,conservative or fascistreaction.Gen-
erally,Mumfordhas avoided the familiarpitfallsof social organicist
thought,in large part by subjectinghis own theoriesto criticismand
revision.If anything,the greatestchallengeto his social theorycame
in the 1950s and 1960s,withthe unparalleledexplosionof the chaotic
megalopolisand above all with the emergenceof what Jacques Ellul
has termedthe dominanceof techniqueor the "technologicalsociety."
Techniquethreatensat once to replacethe organicenvironment and to
sacrificethelastvestigesofindividualand local autonomyto theimpera-
tivesof technologicaladaptation.Under such conditionsthe veryterms

' For theMarxistrejectionof organicismas implyingthepriority

of thesocial whole
to the part,see MartinJay,Marxismand Totality:The Adventures of a Conceptfrom
Lukacs toHabermas(Berkeley,1984),27; Karl Popper'sliberalcritiqueof organicismis
discussedlaterin thispaper.

91

Copyright 1992 by JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS, INC.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
92 RobertCasillo

by whichMumforddefinesthe organicsocietywould seem to have lost

theirbasis in social reality.
Some ofthemaintheoretical sourcesofMumford'sorganicismare in
suchRomanticwriters as Coleridge,Ruskin,Morris,and,notleast,Hegel.
For Hegel,as forMumford,Natureand realityforman integrated whole
within which man and society are essentialparts.Yet thiswhole, farfrom
beingseamlessor static,permitstensionand conflict and pulseswithinner
development.2 Not onlydoes Mumfordapproveofthe"originalHegelian
conceptionof the organicunityof naturaland social processes,in their
continuousdevelopment and transformation," he acceptsHegel's idealis-
tic emphasison the role of consciousnessand ideologyin historicalpro-
cess. Althoughhe acknowledgestheimportance ofmaterialconditionsin
societyand culture,Mumfordassertsthe relativeautonomyof man's
"idolum"orWeltanschauung and so rejectsas inorganic(hencemechanis-
tic) the vulgarMarxistview that ideas, values, and aestheticsymbols
merelyreflector conceal materialfactors.3
The nineteenth-century revolutionin the naturalsciencesfurnishes
the most immediatesource of Mumford'sorganicism.Writingin the
wake of Darwin and greatlyinfluencedby PatrickGeddes,the Scottish
biologist,sociologist,and urbanplanner,MumforddeniesthatNatureis
a staticNewtonianmechanism,a mathematically predictableaggregate
of isolatedentities.Rather,macrocosmicand microcosmicNature em-
body what Geddes definesas synergy, the rule thatan organicwholeis
more than the sum of its parts. One must therefore thinkof Nature,
naturalentities,and indeedall of realityin termsof interacting minor
wholeswithinthewhole.But whileMumfordembracesDarwin'sviewof
Nature as an "ecology" or "web of life,"he cannotcompletelyaccept
Darwin's interpretation of evolutionas competitive, deterministic, and
random.Naturerevealscomplicatedinterdependences, manifoldcoopera-
tions,and immanentpurpose.Natural formsgenerallyevolve to ever
higherlevelsofdifferentiation and integration, hencegreatercooperation.
Pervadedby a "superfluity" offormative energies,thecosmostestifies to
an emergingorderand designwherebyfreedomcomplements necessity,
and purposesupervenesupon chance.4
This designis neitherclosednorstatic,fornatureconstitutes an open
systemwhoseelementstendinherently (or at leastperiodically)to achieve
"dynamicequilibrium."Originatingin late nineteenth-century science,
the conceptof dynamicequilibriumis foundedon a radicaldissociation

2 David F. Bowers,"Hegel, Darwin,and theAmericanTradition,"David F. Bowers

(ed.), ForeignInfluencesin AmericanLife (Princeton,1944), 152-56.
3Lewis Mumford,The Conductof Life (New York, 1951), 224-25; Mumford,The
ConditionofMan (New York, 1944), 8.
4 Mumford, The Cultureof Cities(New York, 1938),302; Mumford,My Worksand
Days: A PersonalChronicle(New York, 1979), 189,361; Mumford,The Conduct,22-36.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 93

betweenthe growthof livingorganismsand the mere"staticalequilib-

rium" of non-livingmatter.In the 1920s and 1930s the conceptwas
developedbya numberofthinkers whomMumfordadmires,amongthem
the biologistWalterCannon, who describedthe body as ever seeking
homeostasis, an internaldynamicequilibrium.Cannon'scolleagueat Har-
vard, LawrenceJ. Henderson,distinguished betweenphysicalsystems,
which are staticand closed, and organic,open ones, which achieve a
"dynamicequilibrium" ininteractingwiththeirenvironments. Henderson
did not confinethisconceptto biologybut used it as Mumforddoes to
describethe "normative"stateof any social system.5
Bornin 1895,Mumfordbenefitted fromtherebellionagainstpositiv-
ismin everymajordiscipline.In The GoldenDay (1926) he celebratesthe
organicistconceptsthat had challengedthe "naive externalities of the
older physics."Whitehead'sholisticdescriptionof realityin termsof
ever-altering alertedMumfordto thelimitations
"organic"interrelations
ofmechanismwithitsstatic,quantifying, Summariz-
isolatingabstraction.
ingtheBritishbiologistC. Lloyd Morgan'sconceptof "emergentevolu-
tion," Mumfordnotes thatthe "introduction of a new factordoes not
just add to the existingmass, but producesan over-allchange,a new
configuration,whichaltersits properties.Propertiesthat could not be
recognized in the pre-emergentstage .. . then for the firsttime become
visible."6Mumfordis indebtedas well to the American"revoltagainst
formalism," led byJohnDewey,ThorsteinVeblen,CharlesBeard,James
HarveyRobinson,and Oliver WendellHolmes, Jr.Anti-positivists all,
thesewriters rejectedsimplisticallyempirical,causal,and factualmethods
in favorofhistoricalmethod,culturalorganicism, and an anti-formalistic
quest forinterdisciplinaryinformation.7
Mumford'ssocial organicismin somewaysresemblesHegel's concept
oftotality.
For Hegel,totality impliedneitherthesuppression ofdifferenti-
ationforthesakeofidentity, as in Schelling,nora homogenousaggregate,
as in a mass society,but ratherwhat MartinJayterms"hierarchically
linked" and "horizontally juxtaposed" totalities.The movementof the
social whole,accordingto Jay,is generatedthroughthe contradictory
interactionof various"subtotalities,"whoserelationbecomesevermore
complexas theprocessadvancesto everhighersyntheses. Like Mumford,
Hegel despisedabstractholismand insisted theneed "intermediate
on for
[social]articulation"and forconstantinteraction on all levelsas opposed
to the suppressionof some partsin favorof others.AlthoughHegel is

I C. E. Russett,The ConceptofEquilibriuminAmericanSocial Thought(New Haven,

1966), 19, 117, 122-24;Mumford,The Conduct,32, 301; Mumford,The Condition,434.
6 Mumford, TheGoldenDay (New York, 1957),113;Mumford,Technicsand Civiliza-
tion(New York, 1934), 368-69;Mumford,The Cityin History(New York, 1961),29.
7Morton White,Social Thoughtin America: The RevoltAgainstFormalism(New
York, 1949), 12, 20, 23, 25, 27.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
94 RobertCasillo
rightly deemeda statist,he conceivedofthestateas expressing thepartsof
society,notcancellingthem.8NonethelessHegel's systemraisedpolitical
problemswhichMumfordlike otherAmericansocial theoristshad to
surmount.Insofaras, for Hegel, the state embodiesthe totalityat its
presentstageofdevelopment, theindividualnotonlycomesafterinstitu-
tionsbut also requiresthe intervention of the statein orderto act; he is
subordinatedto if not submergedwithinthe totality.Moreover,since
Hegel's idealisticmonismis deterministic and thus valorizesthe status
quo as normative, real freedomconsistsin conformity to presentcondi-
tions,whichresult from progressbeyondthe individual's
an irresistible
control.Hence Hegel inviteschargesoftenmadeby criticsoforganicism,
namely,thatit leads inevitably to a staticauthoritarianism and fatalism,
thesacrificeofthepartsto thewhole.Like theAmericancommunitarians
Daniel Mark Baldwin and Charles Horton Cooley, Mumfordseeks to
avoidthisimpassebychallenging theexclusiverightofthestateto express
and dominatethesocial orderand also by insisting on thecapacityofthe
creativeindividualto criticizeand transcendexistingconditions.9
Yet evenmorethanHegel, Mumford'ssocial organicismreflectsthe
attemptof his Americanand European contemporaries to overthrow,
revise,and yetinsomewayspreserveHerbertSpencer'slegacy.A monistic
materialist, Spencerholds that all laws are derivablefromthe laws of
physics,and thatrealityis a seamlessweb ofinterrelated parts.It follows
that societyobservesthe same laws of organizationas Nature,which
providesanalogiesofman's social life.Evolutionrisesfromthehomoge-
neousto theheterogenous, theless integrated to themoreintegrated, the
less equilibratedto the moreequilibrated,so thatat each stepthereis a
betterfitbetweenorganismand environment. As "a systemofmutually-
dependentpartsseverallyperforming actionssubserving maintenanceof
the combination,"Spencersays,the social organismachievesa new and
higherequilibrium at everystageofitsevolution.But unlikeComte,who
viewedsocial equilibriumas alwaysprovisional,Spencerbelieved(with
Hegel) thatsocial evolutionmustculminatein a staticequilibrium, the
"perfect"maximumof differentiation and integration. Spencer'sconclu-
sion reflectshis relianceon a physicalratherthanbiologicalmodel.10
Social organicismcutsacrosspoliticaldivisions.Assumingthatsocial
organicismimpliescontrolin a centeranalogous to the brain,Lester
Ward arguedforstateintervention. Spencer,in contrast,thoughtof the
controlling membersas dispersedamongthesocial organism.Thus,not-
withstanding D. G. Ritchie'spro-statistargumentthatSpencer'sorganic

8 MartinJay,Marxismand Totality, 53 and n., 58, 59.

9 David W. Noble, The Paradox of ProgressiveThought(Minneapolis,1958), 65, 67,
89-93.
10For Spencer,see Russett,The Concept,24, 25, 37, 38, 42-43; RichardHofstadter,
Social Darwinismin AmericanThought(Boston,1955),42.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 95

societyresembledan "extremely low typeof being,"Spencerconjoined

socialorganicism withanti-collectivismand laissezfaire:stateinterference
withany partof the social organismmightresultin damageto another
part.Moreover,competition is essentialto progress,
weedingouttheunfit.
Social altruism,Spencersomehowfelt,would make up forlack of state
II
intervention.
Mumford'sdebtto Spencerand Social Darwinismcomesto himpartly
throughhisself-confessed masterPatrickGeddes,whomMumfordpraises
forhis "ecologicalapproach,"his recognition thatthe "worldofbiology
includedall humanphenomena,"and thatcitiesare "as mucha natural
structure as anthillsor beavercolonies.""2More specifically,Geddes ex-
emplified"ReformDarwinism,"a movementtoward social solidarity
beguninthe1890s.UnlikeDarwin,Geddesregardedlifeand evolutionary
processas purposiveratherthanas theresultofaccidentalvariation.Since
Geddes claimedthatlove and cooperationare as importantas egoistic
competition in naturaland social processes,he appealedto Spencer'sidea
of altruismagainstthe Darwin-Huxleyview of naturalselectionas the
consequenceof competition."3 Mumfordsimilarlyidentifies a good and
bad Darwin,thefirstsympathetic towardnaturallife,thesecondconcoct-
ing a demonicMalthusianvisionof the survivalof the fittist. Mumford
wronglydismissesnaturalselectionas a "myth,"sincenaturealso reveals
"mutualaid,reciprocalinterplay.. , symbiosis"amongall beings.14 This
argumentowes muchto PeterKropotkin'sMutual Aid, whichcontends
thatan instinctof social solidarityand cooperationtypifies bothnatural
species and human societies.Relyingon Darwin's evidenceof human
altruismand socialityin TheDescentofMan, Kropotkinaimedhisattacks
primarily at Huxley.15
AlthoughMumfordand Geddes agreewithSpencerthatnaturaland
social evolutionachieveincreasingdifferentiation and integration,they
disagreewith him on otherkey issues. Obviously,World War I had
exploded Spencer'sargumentfor the pacifisticcharacterof industrial
society.Like LesterWardand manyAmericansocial thinkers after1900,
MumfordrejectsSpencer's(and Hegel's) theorythatsocietymustinevita-
blyreachstaticequilibrium or "closure"infavorofa dynamicequilibrium
modelderivingfrombiology.Nor can Mumford,Geddes,or theirAmeri-

II Hofstadter,Social Darwinism,40, 41; Russett,The Concept,41; GretaJones,Social

Darwinismand English Thought:The InteractionbetweenBiologicaland Sociological
Theory(Brighton,1980), 56, 61.
12 Mumford, SketchesfromLife: The Autobiography of Lewis Mumford:The Early
Years(New York, 1982), 146.
13 Donald C. Bellomy, "Social DarwinismRevisited,"PerspectivesinAmericanHistory:
New SeriesI (Cambridge,Mass., 1984),98.
14 RobertBannister, Social Darwinism:Scienceand MythinAmericanSocial Thought
(Philadelphia,1979),248-49;Mumford,The Conduct,32.
15PeterKropotkin, Mutual Aid: A FactorofEvolution(New York, 1907), 1-75.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
96 RobertCasillo

can contemporaries acceptSpencer'smaterialistic monism,an inherently

deterministic philosophywhichinsistedon boththenecessityoftheindi-
vidual'sadaptationto externalconditionsand thefutility ofall attemptsto
remakesocietyand man.Mumford'sand Geddes'spro-planning approach
somewhatresemblesLesterWard'sjustification of stateinterventionon
thegroundsthatNature'sinstinctive or "genic"activityhad issuedin the
"telic" or consciouslypurposivecharacterof social life,and thatwhere
thestatehas no function thereis no integration.16 Avoiding thecontradic-
tion in Spencerbetweenlaissez faireand social organicism,Mumford
holdsthatwhereaslaissez faireis inorganic,reducingsocietyto warring
atoms,the organicsocietyis necessarilycooperativeand integrated.
Mumford'sand Geddes'sattackon laissezfaireand socialcompetition
testifiesto theirindebtedness to JohnRuskin'sorganicism.17Although
Ruskinrejectedthe"biologicalrevolution," he had a keeneyefornatural
formsand processes.Not onlydoes he describeall organicbeingsas ruled
by the "Law of Help," he thinksof natureas an ecological,synergetic
systemofself-limiting interdependences. As natureis composedofhelpful,
functioning parts,so Ruskin'sideal societyis an organichierarchy whose
membersfunction forthegood ofthewhole;andjust as God rulesnature,
so societyrequiresa directiveauthority.18 Ruskin'sextraction ofhierarchi-
cal valuesfroma divinelyorderednatureraisesa questiontobe considered
later,thatis, whetherorganicismnecessarily leads to a staticand repres-
sive social vision.
For Ruskinas forMumfordthe ideal personis interdisciplinary and
multioccupational-capableof harmonizingmentaland manual labor,
theoryand practice.As the teacher'saim is the "wholeness"and "bal-
ance" of the individual,he necessarilypursuesan "organic approach
to knowledge."Hence the centralityof craftforboth writers,as this
unsystematic activityintegratesand expressesman's totalbeing.19Every
humanactionis to be judged ethically,withina normative"hierarchy"
of needs and purposes.Both writerslamentthattechnology(not to be
confusedwithtechneor craft)and the divisionof labor have separated
intellectualand practicallife,sacrificedvalues to technique,and given
rise to deadeningprofessionalism. Mumford'sand Ruskin's call for a
returnto craftsignifies notreactionary aestheticism buttheawarenessthat
art-with itssensuous,synthetic, hence"organic"forms,and capacityto

16
Noble,TheParadox,61-62;MarshallJ.Cohen,CharlesHortonCooleyand theSocial
Self in AmericanThought(New York, 1982),41-47; Mumford,Technics,274.
17
Mumford,Sketches,43, 330; PatrickGeddes,JohnRuskin,Economist(Edinburgh,
1888),passim.
18 JohnRuskin,TheLibrary EditionoftheCollectedWorksofJohnRuskin,ed. E. T.
Cook and AlexanderWedderburn(London, 1902-12),7: 90, 98, 205, 207; 25: 390, 391;
27: 260-61,508; 28: 280, 343.
19Mumford,The Cultureof Cities,385; Mumford,Valuesfor Survival(New York,
1946), 140-59;Ruskin,Works,8: 85; 9: 44, 441; 10: 192, 194, 196.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 97

expressthe innerworld-had been devaluedunderquantifyingtechnol-

pedagogy
ogy. Justas theirinterdisciplinary specialization,
counteracts
methodspointtowardsan organicsynthesisof
so theirinterdisciplinary
knowledge.20
Ruskinwas indebtedto classicalGreekeconomicsand held thateco-
nomicsis organicallysubordinatedto social, political,and moralissues.
Rejectingtheabstractjargonofnineteenth-century economicorthodoxy,
he denouncedlaissezfaireas anti-socialand purposelesswhilecallingfor
an end to the competitive and exploitativewage-system. For him homo
economicus was a capitalistmyth. Although somewhat unfair to theortho-
dox economists,Ruskinrealizedthattheiremphasison production,ex-
change,and privateacquisitionhad fosteredthe popular confusionof
moneywithreal values,social "illth"withgenuinewealth.21 Societyhad
forgotten thatwealth is valuable
"intrinsic," not by market estimations
butonlyinsatisfying humanneeds.ThusRuskingivesa literally organicist
interpretationto economicvalue. As "the trueveinsof wealth"are "in
Flesh" so thereis, as he writesin UntothisLast, "no wealthbut life."22
Whereasorthodoxor "scarcity"economiststhoughtthatNature's"parsi-
mony"couldbe temporarily overcomeonlybysaving,labor,and produc-
tion,Ruskinforesawindustrialabundanceand arguedthat production
achievesits "perfection" in consumptionof highquality,whichincludes
culturaland social satisfactions. Ruskin's visionof abundanceaccords
withhisbeliefin nature'screativebounty,whilehisintegrated viewofthe
economy,expressedthroughorganicanalogies,evokeshis ecology.23
"Thereis no wealthbutlife":forMumfordand Geddesthisis Ruskin's
centralstatement.24 Mumfordclaims that the abstractionsof Victorian
economistshad littleconnectionwiththereal needs,interests, and habits
ofhumansociety.Theyhad substituted monetary forvitaluse values,the
costoflabortheoryforthemoreaccuratetheoryofintrinsic value.Mock-
ing "Economic Man" as a mereabstraction, Mumfordnotesthatin the
nineteenth century thesupposed"ironlaw" ofwageshad reducedlaborto
thesubsistence leveland thatadequatehousingremainsalmostimpossible
underunregulated capitalism.Not onlydoes Mumforduse Ruskin'sterm
"illth"to characterize productsin whichpecuniaryconsiderations banish
organicones(as in theadulterationof food),buthe arguesas Ruskin does
thattheworthofanyproductmustbe weighedagainstthehumancost-
in lifeand limb-of producingit. WhereasRicardo and Marx identified
value withproductivelabor,Mumfordtracesit to abundantnatureand
20 Mumford,The Pentagonof Power(New York, 1970), 55-57; Mumford,Values,

155-56.
7: 98, 207; 17: 52-53,55-56,60, 85-101,165; 27: 247, 509; 28: 103,
21 Ruskin,Works,
207.
22 Ruskin,Works,17: 55, 56, 85-101,102, 105, 131.
23 Ruskin,Works,17: 48, 101, 114, 171.
24
Mumford,The Condition,415.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98 RobertCasillo

defines itas the"lifefunction[s]" ofcertainthings, theirpowerto foster

vitality.According to Mumford, Ruskinanticipated Geddes's"biotech-
nic"order,andGeddesrightly interprets Ruskin'sideaofintrinsic value
incaloricterms. Theneweconomy shouldaimata livingwage,goodand
plentifulfood,a soundenvironment, andcultural advantages.25
AlthoughRuskinis sometimes seenas an unwitting fatherof the
welfare state,hisadvocacy ofplanning wasequivocal, forhefeared monis-
tic collectivizedengineering overa varietyof corporate institutions.26
Mumford andGeddessimilarly prefer toinvesttheirreformist hopesnot
in bureaucracy butin individuals, voluntaryassociations, existing
and
urbanstructures. Theirfearofthestateisgrounded inGeddes'sdistinction
between closedormechanical andopenororganicplans.Typifying what
Mumford terms the"fallacy ofsystems," theclosedplanis imposed upon
realityab extraandthus"neglect[s] thevariedfactors thatbelongto life
byreasonofitscomplexneedsand organicpurposes."In contrast, the
openplanacceptsthatlife"cannotbe reduced"toa system, foritsessence
Thedistinction
is processnotstaticperfection.27 between closedandopen
planscallsto mindColeridge's (and Ruskin's) antithesis (derivingfrom
GermanNaturphilosophie) between themechanical formimposedupona
material ab extra,without regardforitsproperties, andtheorganicform
whichshapesitselffromwithin, and whichis morethana collection of
individual parts.28 the
No merelyidealconstruct, openplan works pa-
tientlyand"cooperatively" withpre-existentmaterials,withlocalindivid-
ualsandassociations, "perhapsguiding them,butfirst ... understanding
theirpurposes." As openplansaccommodate slowgrowth and newre-
sponses, theypermit life
to achieve dynamic balance and more subtleand
complex richness ofform.29 Nonetheless,oneseesa tension inMumford's
thought betweentheattractions of planningand thevaluesof growth,
change,andspontaneity.

By1900Spencer'sorganicismwasunderattack.NotonlyhadSpencer
presented analogiesbetween
ofarbitrary
a multitude Natureandsociety,
buthe andhisfollowershadneglectedthedifferencesbetween biological
and socialsystems.
Mumford "rule[s]out falsebiologicalanalogiesbe-
tweensocietiesand organisms,"addingthatSpencerand othershad
"pushedthesetothepointofabsurdity."Rejecting"organismic" theories,

See Mumford,Technics,76, 154, 179, 186, 194-95,216, 248-49; Mumford,The

25

Culture,177, 542; Mumford,The Condition,105, 385, 405-8.

26 p. D. Anthony, JohnRuskin'sLabour: A Studyof Ruskin'sSocial Theory(Cam-
bridge,England,1983),7, 55-56,87, 91, 123, 135, 152.
27 Mumford,The Conduct,175-76.
28 S. T. Coleridge,BiographiaLiteraria,ed. J. Shawcross(London, 1973), 2: 5-13,

13-20;Coleridge,Coleridge'sShakespeareianCriticism, ed. Thomas Raysor(Cambridge,

Mass., 1930),224.
29
Mumford,The City,394, 87; Mumford,The Conduct,183.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 99

which,to quoteRussett,"expressa literalanalogybetween societyand

organisms
physical and [are]couched in biological Mum-
terminology,"
fordfavorsan "organic"theoryof society,focusing largelyon social
psychology.30
Nonetheless, Mumford's organicism dependson at leastoneanalogy
between naturaland social life.
He and GeddesextendtheAristotelian
assumption thatorganisms instinctively (hencepurposively) control their
growthand thusfindtheirecologicalniche.Anysocietyor citymust
likewiseachievean internal "dynamic equilibrium" lestitgrowtoolarge
anddisintegrate from within. Thisrequires self-limitation andinterdepen-
denceamongitsparts,which,as in thecaseofneighborhoods, resemble
cellsororgans.To define thecityonelooksforits"organizing nucleus,"
geographical andman-made "boundaries," "subsidiary centers forassoci-
ationandcommunication," "groupsandinstitutions." Butmanmustalso
realizetheecological truththatcityandcountryside areproperly a single
unitexisting ina good"symbiosis," neither dominating theother.3" Mum-
fordaccordingly condemns whatGeddesterms "conurbation," theuncon-
trolledmetropolitan expansion intothecountryside. ForGeddes,London
is a "vastirregular growth"; forMumford, it is an ameboid aggregation
of"urbangranules."32
Another astonishing flawbecameapparent in Spencerian organicism
bytheturnofthecentury: thefailureto showhowtheindividual and
societyareorganically connected. Especially dissatisfying was Spencer's
identification ofsolidaritywithfunctional or economic interdependence,
meremechanical connections ratherthansharedvalues.33 Challenging
Spencer, theAmerican sociologist CharlesHortonCooleyarguedthatself
and socialprocessare psychological, and thattheselfis a productof
society.The "socialself'originates inthecommunal context ofthe"pri-
marygroup,"namelyfamily, neighborhood, playground, and school,
whicharethebasisforsocialization andallothercooperative interactions.
Society's"organic" bonds are not analyzable in terms oforganic analogies
ormechanical structuresbutinobservable psychic andsymbolic interac-
tionsand the sharedvaluesarisingfromthem.Cooleyemphasized,
though, thattheindividual is properly in dialectical balancewithsociety
ratherthansubmerged in it.34Contributing to a majorshiftfromthe
biologicalviewof societyto socialpsychology, Cooleybelongedto an

30Mumford,The Culture,303; Russett,The Concept,67n.

31 Mumford,The City,52, 53, 93, 184.
32 PatrickGeddes,CitiesinEvolution:AnIntroduction totheTownPlanningMovement
and to theStudyof Civics(New York, 1968),26; Mumford,The City,93, 534, 539.
33 JeanQuandt,From theSmall Townto theGreatCommunity: The Social Thought
ofProgressiveIntellectuals(New Brunswick,1970), 17, 24, 28, 57-58,87, 171n.
34 CharlesHortonCooley,Social Organization in TheMajor WorksofCharlesHorton
Cooley:Social Organizationand Human Natureand theSocial Order(Glencoe, 1956),
3-5,23-31; Noble, The Paradox, 109; Cohen, CharlesHortonCooley,124-30,164-74.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
100 RobertCasillo

American"communitarian" movement whichincludedJohnDewey,Jos-

iah Royce,JamesMark Baldwin,George HerbertMead, and JaneAd-
dams,all of whomemphasizedthe social selfand the importanceof the
social in understanding humannature.35 In part the importanceof the
theoryof the primarygroupis that,contraryto Spencer,it emphasized
cooperationratherthan competitionas the basis forsociety.But even
moreimportant-insofar as thisconceptenabledCooley,Baldwin,and
subsequently Mumfordto definea supposedlynormaland universalhu-
manityin its fundamentaland timelesssituation-it provideda fixed
social and evenpoliticalstandardforevaluatinginstitutions
and hencea
means of escapingthe relativismtypicalof the evolutionarypoint of
view.36
Cooley,Dewey, RobertPark, and othercommunitarians knewthat
theirsocial categoriesresembledthoseofEuropeanthinkers: HenrySum-
nerMaine,whodistinguished betweensocietiesofstatusand modernones
ofcontract;GeorgSimmel,who examinedtheeffect ofthemetropolis on
mentallife;and especiallyFerdinand T6nnies, who distinguishedGemein-
schaftfromGesellschaft. The firstis the organic,familial,cooperative,
and culturallyintegrated societyof the agrarianvillage;the second,the
atomizedand artificialsocietyof the moderncity,withits divisionof
labor,markets,statebureaucracy,and class conflict.37 But whereasin
Tonniesthe medievalcommunity is a "given"unityof willsintowhich
one is born,the Americancommunitarians were democraticand, like
Mumford,stressedvoluntaryassociations.They identifiedthe organic
communitywith the small town or city constitutedby such primary
groupsas family, neighborhood, and school.Theyadmireditsface-to-face
relations,participatory politics,and local autonomy.Notwithstanding
the freeminglingof classes in social and politicallife
social differences,
permitted thedevelopment ofcommonvalues.As thesecommunities were
comparatively undifferentiatedsociallyand economically, craftprevailed
overindustrialspecializationand a commoncultureexisted.38
Not onlydoes MumfordacceptCooley'sviewoftheselfas a product
ofsocialinteractionbuthe believesthatselfand societyarefundamentally
psychicconstructs. Hence his (and Geddes's) insistenceon participatory
socialdramaand symbolism. Accordingto Mumford, Romanticism erred
in emphasizingantisocialsubjectivity, as did Burckhardtin praisingRe-
naissanceindividualism overmedievalcorporatism. CitingCooley,Mum-
fordobservesthat"Gemeinschaft" originates in the"primarygroup,with

35Cohen,CharlesHortonCooley,105-24.
36Noble,The Paradox, 16, 109-10,114-16.
37 MortonWhiteand Lucia White,The Intellectualversusthe City:From Thomas

JeffersontoFrankLloyd Wright (Cambridge,Mass., 1962), 146, 156, 158, 164; Quandt,

From theSmall Town,17; FerdinandTonnies,FundamentalConceptsof Sociology,tr.
CharlesF. Loomis (New York, 1940),passim.
38 Quandt,From theSmall Town,5, 7, 8, and passim.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 101

itsspontaneous, instinctual, largely'given'relationships." Hereis another

reasonthatsocieties mustavoidbecoming toolargespatially ortoopopu-
lous,forthough greatnumbers might seemtopromote socialintercourse,
thereis a "greater fieldforcollective actionin a village."Seedbedsof
localandthencewidercommunity, neighborhoods deserveprotection as
fundamental social "cell[s]"and as a restraint on uncontrolled urban
growth.39 Appreciating thepolitical valueofsmallassociations, Mumford
laments thattheFounding Fathersfailedto makethe"democratic local
unitthebasic cell" of our wholesystemof government.i" So, too,he
preferscomparatively undifferentiated societiesinwhich, laborbeingonly
moderately divided, no majordivisions existbetween cultureandsociety.
Mumford's organicism is fedbyseveralotherAmerican sources.In
1941F. 0. Matthiessen notedthatEmerson, Thoreau,Hawthorne, Mel-
ville,and Whitman all identifiedtheorganicsocietywithsharedvalues
and the "union"of laborand culture.41But whileMortonand Lucia
Whitecorrectly linkMumford withEmerson'sorganicism, whichthey
traceto Coleridge, theymistakenly contend thatMumford sharesEmer-
son'santi-socialloveofNatureandsolitude as wellas hisanti-urbanism.42
Actually, Mumford isnotanti-urban butanti-megalopolitan; andwhereas
theradically individualistic Emerson(likehisAmerican Romanticcol-
leagues)has no theoryof society,Mumford does. At the sametime,
Mumford's socialorganicism hasaffinities withVanWyckBrooks,Ran-
dolphBourne, andWaldoFrank,whowereassociated withtheshort-lived
magazineTheSevenArts.As CaseyBlakeobserves, thesewriters dreamed
ofcreating a new"post-industrial" community anda democratic culture
grounded onan "organic ethosofmutuality."43 Believing thattheorganic
societyrequires cultural unity, theysought toclosethedivision inAmerica
between highandlowculture, between high-toned moraltheory anddaily
practice.Yet Bournedied young,Brookslaboredon whatsometimes
amounted to an historical fantasyofa harmonious earlyNew England,
into
and Frankventured mysticism. Mumford by contrast deepenedhis
criticalunderstanding oforganicism through historical, socio-
scientific,
logical,and anthropological research.
Thorstein Veblen,withwhomMumford studied, wasofmajorimpor-
tanceto thedevelopment of hissocial organicism. Mumford acceptsVe-
blen'sdescription ofneolithic "savagery" as idyllicifnotutopian. In both
writers theneolithic villagesignifies communal values,a humanscale,

39Mumford,The Condition,281; Mumford,The UrbanProspect(New York, 1968),

62; Mumford,The Culture,250-51.
40 Mumford, The Urban,224.
AmericanRenaissance:Artand Expressionin theAgeofEmerson
41 F. 0. Matthiessen,

and Whitman(London, 1941),xiv-xv.

24-35,204-8,228, 235-36.
42 Whiteand White,The Intellectual,
ofLiteraryBiography:Volume63: Modern
43 Casey Blake,"Waldo Frank,"Dictionary
AmericanCritics,1920-1955(Detroit,1988), 122-30.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 RobertCasillo

collectiveor "democratic"participation, equalitybetweenmen and

women,agrarianism, and an "instinct of workmanship" whereby each
personproduces hisshareforthegeneralwelfare. Without private prop-
erty-andhencefreefromparasitism, emulative competition, andpreda-
tion-thepeaceful neolithic villageesteems womenforthegentleartsof
nurture andcultivation. Justas thefunctional participationofindividuals
prevents class conflict, so productivity dispelsscarcity.44 Veblenthus
deplored thedefeatofneolithic culture by"barbarism" as represented by
competitive warrior aristocracies avidofprivate property andcontemptu-
ous ofproductive work.Gradually theneolithic villagegiveswayto the
city,withitsclassdivisions, priestlysecrecy, and alienating scale.Simi-
larly,forthelaterMumford themorbid form ofpost-neolithic civilization
istheurban"megamachine," withitsregimented urbanmassesdominated
byanexploitative aristocracy anda priesthood bentonimperial expansion.
To be sure,Veblendoesnotenvision a return to the neolithic village,and
Mumford criticizesit as beingtoostatic,tribal,closed;yettheyhopeto
reviveitslongperverted orsuffocated "instincts"inan industrial setting,
whileMumford insiststhatall healthy neighborhoods continue theneo-
lithicpattern.Indeed,whatDavidNoblesaysofVeblenappliestoMum-
ford:theneolithic villagecorresponds totheprimary groupandstandsas
thebasicand"unconquerable" socialunit,themeasure oftheuniversally
human.So longas thispattern exists,whether in a primitive or urban
setting,there remains the possibility of returning to "normative" hu-
manity.45
For bothVeblenand Mumford, "barbarism" prefigures inorganic
socialrelations undercapitalism. The dominance of a parasiticupper
class,descendant oftheexploitative warrior aristocracies andcomparable
towhatVeblendescribes as a "tumor"onthebodyofsociety, hasresulted
in thegeneraldevaluation of productive workin favorof conspicuous
wasteand leisure.Confusing moneyvalueswithrealwealth,capitalism
sacrificesproduction and theinstinct ofworkmanship to thepecuniary
interestsofbusinessmen andfinanciers. YetVeblenbelieved thatneolithic
valuesmightbe recovered iftheeconomy weretakenoverbyan eliteof
engineers who,somewhat likeFrederick Taylor'sefficiencyexperts, would
directtheindustrial plantnotforprivate profitbutefficiently andproduc-
tively.Veblenrealized, though, thatthispossibility washighly unlikely.46

44Thorstein Veblen,The Instinctof Workmanship (New York, 1914),36-37;Veblen,

The Theoryof the Leisure Class (New York, 1965), 6, 16; Mumford,The City,8-20;
Mumford,The Mythof theMachine(New York, 1967), 130-61.
45 ThorsteinVeblen, The Theory, 270; Mumford,The Culture,285; Mumford,The
City,21-54;Mumford,The Myth,161-62;Noble, The Paradox,209, 216, 218, 223-24.
46 Veblen,The Theory,9-10, 17, 246, 253, 275; Veblen,The Engineersand thePrice
System(New York, 1921),7, 8, 28-29,31; David Riesman,ThorsteinVeblen(New York,
1960), 61; JohnP. Diggins,The Bard of Savagery:ThorsteinVeblenand ModernSocial
Theory(New York, 1978), 15, 16, 21, 25.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 103

MuchofVeblen'scritique reappears in Mumford: thedissociation of

pecuniaryvaluesfromproductivity; theidealofa functional and hence
non-classproducer's society, forwhichAmericanhistory affords many
analogues(thePopulists, theKnights ofLabor,Bellamy's Looking Back-
ward);andtheconceptoftechnocracy, to whichMumford wasdrawnin
the 1930s.But thereis no perfect congruity betweenthesewriters, for
Veblen'ssocialorganicism is impoverished, cramped, andimbalanced by
comparison withMumford's richly varied orchestrations ofhuman need.
Although Veblensometimes identifies theinstinct ofworkmanship with
a gratuitous"play"instinct, his Malthusian fearof scarcity leadshim
moregenerally to defineit in termsof a parsimonious and impersonal
productiveefficiency.The samevalueunderlies Veblen'spuritanical dis-
paragement ofritual,ceremony, drama,indeedofall cultural symbolism
as wastefulornament, invidious self-advertisement. As David Riesman
notes,Veblen'sobsession withproductivity issuesina conception ofsocial
organizationsimilarto thatofEdwardBellamy:centralized administra-
tion,eliminationofcompetition as wasteful, theadaptation ofsociety to
organization.
industrial Forall hispraiseoftheinstinct ofworkmanship,
Veblenexpected humanity tosubmit tothemachine andwasso impressed
by itsmodernascendancy thathe tendedto identify it withthesocial
Giventhisonesidedemphasis
processitself. on technocracy andthema-
chine,Veblencannotreallybeconsidered a socialorganicist.47Bycontrast,
Mumford's socialthought reflects hisassumption ofnaturalabundance
andsuperfluity. Despitehisoverestimation ofaesthetic functionalism in
the1930s,thelaterMumford recognizes the claims not of
only play but
ofself-expressionandsymbolic ornament in artandarchitecture, justas
he emphasizes thesocialefficacy ofdramaandritual.Again,reacting to
theDepression, Mumford isoverly preoccupied withindustrial productiv-
ityin the1930s,yeton thewholehe is highly criticalofthosewho,like
EdwardBellamyandmostmodern utopians, believea one-sided concern
withindustrial efficiencyor machinery holdsthesolutionto all social
problems.48

Mumford's appealto neotechnic precedents his assumption

reflects
thatman'shistoricalevolutionholdsthesecretofbedrock humannature.
Yet evenmorethantheneolithic, Mumford's preferredsocietiesarethe
Greekpolisandthemedieval townorcity.He praisesthesecommunities
economic
fortheirsmallscale,socialintimacy, interdependence withthe
andslow,purposive,
countryside, growth
adaptive within"organic limits"
and the openplan. Comparatively castelessand unspecialized, Greek

4'Veblen, The Theory,116, 117, 151-54,176, 374, 379; Riesman,ThorsteinVeblen,

9n, 33, 51.
48 Mumford,The Conduct,34-35; Mumford,Technics,333-37,356, 360; Mumford,
The Storyof Utopias(New York, 1922); Mumford,The Pentagon,215-19.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104 RobertCasillo

and medievalsocietyenjoyedflourishing crafttraditions whereby the

individualacquired thebroadoutlooknecessary forsocialand especially
inthecaseofthepolis-politicalparticipation. Inseparable frompolitical
and religiouslife,Greekand medievalartformed partoftheeveryday
socialenvironment, so thatcultureandsocietywereintertwined. At the
in
sametime,theeconomy bothinstances was "organically" embedded
insociety.LikeRuskin,Mumford unfavorably contraststhemodemem-
phasison exchange value,laissezfaire, accumulation, andcompetition to
theGreekandmedievalconcernforuse value,distribution, socialfunc-
tion,andeconomiccooperation.49
Butratherthandefining thepolisas hissocialideal,Mumford criticizes
itforaccepting slaveryandthesubjection ofwomenas wellas forclinging
tribalvalues.PlatoandAristotle
to autarchic, shouldhave"moralized,"
notcondemned, commerce. Nor is it as
true, Peter Firchowclaims,that
Mumford's utopiaistheMiddleAges;forMumford contends thatRenais-
sancecapitalism andindividualism atfirstprovided a necessary corrective
to medievalotherworldliness and traditionalism.50 No less dubiousis
MeyerSchapiro'sassertion thatmedievalauthoritarianism constitutes
Mumford's socialideal.51Thisis notto denythatMumford's viewofthe
MiddleAgesowessomething notjustto Geddes,Kropotkin, andMorris
buttoa conservative Romantic tradition whichincluded Coleridge,Cob-
bett,Southey,Pugin,Carlyle, andRuskin.Idealizing theMiddleAgesas
anauthoritarian, hierarchical
society united bytraditionalbondsofloyalty
andobedience as opposedto cashorcontract, thesewriters thought ofit
as a truecommunity becauseit seemedto consistnotofhostileclasses
butoffunctional ranks,eachwithinan organic, corporate whole.52But
whileMumford offersa version ofsocialfunctionalism, he interpretsthe
MiddleAgesin democratic ratherthanin authoritarian or hierarchical
terms. He happilynotesthatthemedieval statewasweak,thatthepoly-
technictradition oftheMiddleAgeswas "democratic" in itsavoidance
of monopolizable fuelsand tools,and thatmedievalguildsachieved-
besidessocial participation-ameasureof self-government and self-
protection.Although Mumford admitsthatfeudaloppressions existed,he
findsthemmitigated byreciprocities amongtheclasses.53
49For Mumfordon the Greeks,see The Story,40-41; The City,124-33,165, 168,
183-86.For Mumfordon the Middle Ages, see The City,248-328; The Condition,108,
161, 163.
50PeterFirchow,"Lewis Mumford,"in AmericanWriters: A Collectionof Literary
Biographies, Supplement II, Part2 (New York, 1981),483; Mumford,The Condition,110,
148; Mumford,The City,416; Mumford,The Culture,71; Mumford,Technics,44.
51Meyer Schapiro,"Looking Forward to Looking Backward,"PartisanReview,5
(July,1938), 18.
52 Alice Chandler,A Dream of Order:The MedievalIdeal in Nineteenth-CenturyEn-
glishLiterature(London, 1970),passim.
53 Mumford, TheCulture,67-68;Mumford,TheCity,270-77;Mumford,ThePentagon,
130-39;Mumford,The Myth,236.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 105

Yet thepolisand themedievalcitymightseemalmostidealbycompar-

isonwithmodernurbanAmerica.Imbuedwiththeidealoflifeas a unified
whole,Jane Addams and othercommunitarians saw that the division
of labor had eclipsedcraftsmanship, sunderedtheoreticaland practical
education,intellectualand manuallabor,and spatiallysegregatedsocial
classes.Here are groundsforDewey's repudiationofexclusivelyliterary
cultureand Addams's and Geddes's convictionof the inadequacyof the
threeR's and purelyvocationaltraining.The communitarians also saw
that older neighborhoodsand institutionshad deterioratedamid the
growthof urban mass society.Formerlythe basis of community, the
primarygroupshad yieldedto moreimpersonal"secondarygroups":the
factory,the office,the courts,the police,and the press.Increasinglyin
the modernmetropolisone's sense of communitydependedon remote
mechanicaldevices,whiledemocracywas reducedto strainedidentifica-
tionwithrepresentative bodiesand a bureaucratic state.Even smalltowns
and regions-JosiahRoyce's buildingblocks of nationalcommunity-
werebecomingappendagesof metropolises.54
Reiteratingthiscommunitarian critique,Mumfordobservesthatthe
Americancolonialvillagebrokeup whentradeled to physicalexpansion,
widercontacts,and thedwindlingof "commonconcerns."He tracesthis
fragmentation to the extremedivisionof labor undercapitalism,allied
withtechnology and themilitaristic state.The balancedpersonality ofthe
craftsman could not survivethe separationof mentalfrommanualskills
and theoverliterary emphasisofupperclass education,whichintensified
social segregation.Meanwhilethe city grew so large that face-to-face
relationsdeclinedalong withthe family,neighborhood, and region.As
theunityofmasssocietywas at bestthe mechanical product ofmediating
devicessuchas thepressand radio,thecitizenbecamea vicariousspecta-
tor and consumerof mereinformation. Politicalbureaucraciesprolifer-
ated, since the big city could no longerfunctionon the older, more
intimatecommunalbasis.55
The best-known ofthecommunitarian reforms is thesettlementhouse
and in particularJaneAddams's Hull House in Chicago,whosepurpose
was to providea social, cultural,and educationalcenterin slum areas.
Addams, Cooley, and JohnDewey also saw the school as a means of
combatting industrialspecializationwhilefostering democraticvaluesand
primarygroup relations.Althoughthe communitarians partlyblamed
moderncommunicationsand technologyfor the loss of community,

54 Whiteand White,TheIntellectual,146, 151-55,161, 164, 168-69,170, 173, 179-83,

216; Quandt,From theSmall Town,69, 79-80,87-89,91, 92, 98, 116, 146, 151-56,164;
Maurice Stein,The Eclipseof Community: An InterpretationofAmericanStudies(New
York, 1965),26-27.
55Lewis Mumford,Sticksand Stones:A StudyofAmericanArchitecture and Civiliza-
tion(New York,1926),35, 37,53; Mumford,Technics,165,172-78;Mumford,The Urban,
38, 39; Mumford,The Culture,249, 260; Mumford,The Condition,390.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106 RobertCasillo

Dewey,Veblen,Cooley,and Parkalso welcomedthemas a meansof

it.LikeCooley,Deweyclaimedthattheproperuseofmodern
restoring
communications shouldextendtheprimarygroupto thelargersociety
andthusenhancedemocracy. AccordingtoPark,thepresscannotsubsti-
tutefortheoldercommunity butcan connectgroups.56
As late as 1962 Mumfordobservesthat "We shall never... [deal]
groups,unless ... we
with... large unitsand differentiated
effectively
rebuildand revitalize thesmallunit."An enthusiast (likeGeddes)of
thesettlement houseanditsfounders CanonBarnett andJaneAddams,
Mumford ClarencePerry,
also celebrates whoconceived ofthecommu-
nitycenter.57Lestthesprawling modemcitybecome"Parasitopolis," a
bloated,dysfunctional,andinorganic Mumford
entity, and Geddespro-
pose to implement EbenezerHoward'ssmall-scale, low-density garden
cities.Conceived onan openplan,thesewouldtransplant urban
excessive
populations within a naturalenvironmentwhilecontributingto regional
Mumford
decentralization.58 agreeswithDeweyand Geddesthatwork
shouldbalanceintellectual and manuallabor,literacyand practical
knowledge; yeta "common curriculum"isalsoneededinordertopromote
communal values.Ideallysuchreforms willresultin informed political
so that politicswill be a "constant... processin daily
participation,
living."59Mumford also frequentlycontends in the 1930sthatmodem
communications has thepotential to restoreimmediacy, intimacy,and
face-to-faceencounters,whilein 1951he anticipates McLuhan'sdubious
claimthatelectronic mediaarecreating a globalvillage.60
Mumford andthecommunitarians wereexcessively as most
optimistic,
oftheirproposedreforms had at bestpartialsuccess.AfterWorldWar
II sociologists
accepted that"societyisa spatialbutnota spiritual
commu-
nity," and that"interdependence existswithout individual identification
withthewhole."61 Justas Addamswas merelydreaming to thinkthat
artsand craftscouldcounteract the divisionof labor,so Cooleyand
Deweyfailedtoreconcile withthereality
creativity ofindustrialmachin-
62
ery. Havingplaced too much faith
in the new media, which wereneither
art nor dialogue,the communitarians saw theirhopesfordemocracy

56Quandt,From theSmall Town,29, 33, 51, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 71, 75, 101-16,137,
140; Whiteand White,The Intellectual,152-53,159-61,170-72;Cohen, CharlesHorton
Cooley,69, 183-84,200, 224, 226.
57 Mumford, The UrbanProspect,18, 36, 62, 64, 66-67;Mumford,The City,500.
58 PatrickGeddes,PatrickGeddes:Spokesman forMan and theEnvironment, ed. M.
Stalley(New Brunswick,1972), 188-89;Mumford,The City,234, 514-24.
59Mumford,Values,163, 165, 178,213; Mumford,The Culture,382.
60 Mumford,Technics, 239-41;Mumford,The Conduct,238.
47-69;JohnDewey, The Publicand itsProblems
61 Stein,The Eclipseof Community,
(New York, 1927),98; Cohen,CharlesHortonCooley,229; Whiteand White,TheIntellec-
tual,234-35.
62
Quandt,FromtheSmall Town,92, 95, 96, 97, 202n.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 107

likewisederailedbybureaucratic resistance inpartiesandstatesandalso

bythecitizens' neglectoftheirresponsibilities. In appealing toeducation
forcitizenship as a mainsourceofsocialreform theymiscalculated the
riseof specialization
irresistible whilesuccumbing to circularlogic:to
bring abouttheneweducational system, institutions
already hadtopossess
thevaluesthesystem was intended to produce.63
Thereis,however, lessjustificationforothercriticisms which-having
beenlevelledagainstMumford's predecessors andcolleaguesamongthe
American communitarians (whether progressive or socialdemocratic)-
also extendto Mumford himself.Although thecommunitarians thought
ofthemselves as liberalreformists, somecriticshavesoughtreasonsto
chargethemwithbeingessentially conservative. An exemplar of"socio-
logicalfunctionalism,"whichemphasizes interdependence between soci-
etyand theindividual, Cooleyinsistedthatevenif one failsto grasp
societyas an orderly, equilibrated whole,it alwaysremainsone.64The
othercommunitarians' social organicism similarly cut acrosspolitical
divisionsthanks totheirbiastowards harmony andunity, interaction and
adjustment. Tending, as Cooleydid,to assumethateachindividual is a
socialmicrocosm, theyespousednota classbuta functional theory of
societyinwhichgroupsandindividuals workadaptively withtherestand
in whichreconciliation and slow development are preferred to group
conflictandrevolutionary change.Thecommunitarians' idealistbiasen-
couraged themto dismiss materialistarguments forsocialchangeas one-
sided.All thissupposedly explainstheirconservative fearofsocialstrug-
gle,whichviolated theiridealofassociation, andtheirtimidity inpolitical
reform, as theyfearedthestateas inorganic. Instead,theysoughtto
reducesocialimpersonality through suchmethodsof socialcontrolas
"psychic improvements" intheworkplace andthetransformation ofval-
uesin education.65
On different linesJamesB. Gilberthas launchedan indiscriminate
attackagainstearlytwentieth-century andespecially post-World WarII
socialreformers, manyofwhomwereprogressive, socialdemocratic, and
Reform Darwinist communitarians whoinfluenced Mumford. LikeJean
Quandt,Gilbertholdsthattheirexcessive loveofharmony andequilib-
riumissuedinan ideology intolerantofclassdivision andsocialconflict
in
andthus favorofpsychic improvements and other middle-class pallia-
tives.He has onlycontempt forthesettlement houseand theemphasis

63 See JamesKloppenberg's Social Democracyand Prog-

critiquein UncertainVictory:
ressivismin Europeanand AmericanThought,1870-1920(New York, 1986),255, 379-80,
381, 385.
6 Edward C. Jandy,CharlesHortonCooley:His Life and Social Theory (New York,
1942),87; AlbertJ.Reiss,"Introduction,"Cooleyand SociologicalAnalysis(Ann Arbor,
1968),4; Russett,The Concept,139.
see Quandt,FromtheSmall Town,28, 129, 131-39,186n,214-15n;
65 For thiscritique,
Cohen, CharlesHortonCooley,179.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
108 RobertCasillo

oneducation as a meansofreform. ButunlikeQuandt,Gilbert holdsthat

thisideologywas anti-democratic and anti-regionalist, sinceit aimedat
thesubordination oftheindividual to thesocialwhole.
Castinga widenet,Gilbertportrays thesereforming intellectuals as
the architects of a centralizing statecollectivism witha paternalistic,
welfare emphasis, in whichan eliteoftechnocratic experts andbureau-
crats-thereformers themselves-were to play an indispensable roleas
large-scaleplanners. Veblenis oneofmanyexamples. Greatly influenced
byEdwardBellamy, believed
thesecollectivists that,justas modern soci-
etyshouldimitate industrialorganization,so thestateshouldpattern itself
on thenewmodelofthemoderncommercial corporation. The goalwas
tointegrate individuals within theindustrial andeconomic system andto
directthemin thesoleinterest ofproduction andefficiency. To thisend
theysoughtto manipulate theworker and theworksituation bymeans
ofindustrial psychology through the new techniques of scientific manage-
mentand industrial psychology devisedbyFrederick Taylorand Elton
Mayo.NotonlydidMayobelievewithTaylorthatthe"scienceofhuman
relations" couldharmonize theinterests of laborand management, he
believedthatit couldachievetherecovery oftheprimary groupin the
workplace. Underthecollectivists' schemethestatewasfalsely conceived
as theobjective embodiment ofthecommunity, hencededicated toadmin-
istrativeor civic"service"ratherthanto thesupport ofprivileged class
interestsortheextension ofitsownpower.As forsociety, theyunderstood
itinterms notofcompeting classesbutoffunctional groupsofproducers
defined entirely by theirwork.Finally,Gilbertholdsthatthiskindof
collectivism- functional,managerial, non-participatory, andstatesocial-
istic-is thelogicalresultoftheapplication oftheimpossibly vagueor-
ganicor "biological"metaphor ofsociety, whichconceals class conflicts
whilepromoting resultsadvertised
collectivist as truecommunalism.66
Although Gilberthasdocumented wellthemovement towardcollec-
tivismin the 1920s,his criticisms are largelyunfairto Mumford's col-
leagues.AgainlikeQuandt,Gilbert seems to thinkthat if a writer is not
revolutionary, materialist,skepticalofall classcooperation, andradically
anti-capitalist,he is necessarilya conservative or proto-fascist. Admit-
tedly,thereconciliation of theindividual and thesocialwas a lasting
problem fortheprogressives and socialdemocrats (as formanyothers).
Yethowever muchtheyemphasized socialharmony, theyneverdidso to
thepointofabsorbing theindividual within thegroupor state.
66
JamesB. Gilbert,DesigningtheIndustrialState:TheIntellectualPursuitofCollectiv-
ismin America,1880-1940(Chicago, 1972), 10, 15, 19,20-44,53-60,73, 99, 287. For the
see Loren Baritz,The Servantsof Power:A Historyof the
rise of industrialpsychology,
Use ofSocial Sciencein AmericanIndustry(Middletown,Conn., 1960),7, 16-17,28-31,
77-116; Samuel Haber, Efficiency and Uplift:ScientificManagementin theProgressive
Era, 1890-1920(Chicago, 1964),xi, 89-95,143, 167. However,Haber also recognizesthe
progressives'democraticemphases.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 109

Baldwin,Cooley,and Herbert Crolyare paradigmatic examples, in-

sistingthattheindividual ideallyremainsat once socialand morally
autonomous. This viewpoint is inseparable fromthe communitarians'
democratic conceptofparticipatory, pragmatic experiment towardopen-
endedsocialchange-nota staticbuta dynamic equilibrium allowing for
differencesbetween individuals andgroupsandthusa degreeofconflict.
Hencethecommunitarians' emphasis, however misguided, on communi-
cationsto enlargeawareness. Far frombeingauthoritarian, paternalistic
thesereformers
collectivists, felttheirreconcilable moderntensionbe-
tweenbureaucratic centralization anddemocratic, freedom.
localistic Re-
jectingHegel'sconservative emphasison thesuperiority ofthestateto
theindividual, theyinsisted uponboththeeducative, disciplinaryroleof
groupsandthecreative, criticalroleoftheresponsible individual.Their
"sociology offreedom," as David Nobleputsit,in no senseacceptsthe
statusquo as thebestpossiblesocialarrangement butrather evaluates the
presentinthelightofanidealharmony ofwills.Accordingly theyrejected
laissezfaireandconceived ofthestateas theembodiment ofcommunal
ethics.Although theyrecognized thenecessity forexperts, theythought
ofthemnotas usurping democracy orcreating valuesbutas advising and
providing information. Insteadof extolling socialcontrol, theyviewed
efficencyexperts as instrumentalists without values.Although theybe-
lievedthatwelfare reform pointedin thedirection ofa moresocialized
"service"state,theyalsosawpaternalism as a threat to freedom. Fearful
of subsuming functional groupsunderstatesocialism, theyrefused to
stressfunctions or dutiesat theexpenseofrights and indeed envisioned
(as didtheGuildSocialists) self-government inindustry. Theydiffered in
theirattitudes towardprivateproperty, yettheygenerally distinguished
between property foruseandproperty forpower.Iftheysought toregulate
ratherthanto commandcapitalism, they did so in order to avoidthe
potentiallygreater evilofstatedominance through ownership ofindustry
and property. Andfinally, thesereformers rejected onesidedmaterialist
ideologiesbecausetheyunderstood thatcultural valuesandeducation are
essential and
to voluntary lasting socialchange, that neither revolution
normachinery is sufficientto fosterpublicvirtue:an idealistposition
which,likemostoftheirideas,resembles Mumford's.67
WhatthenofMumford's allegedconservativism, reaction, and even

67 This paragraphis indebtedto Noble, The Paradox, 72-73, 92-95, 106-7;Jandy,

CharlesHortonCooley,182-87;and especiallyKloppenberg,UncertainVictory, 148,254-
56, 267-68,271-72,349-61,373, 381-84,391, 396-97,400, 401, 402, 411, 502n.Suggesting
thatthe progressivistsand communitarians avoidedcollectivismpartlybecause theyre-
jected social organicism,Kloppenbergseemsto accept the commonassumption,which
Mumfordaimsto disprove,thatorganicisttheoriesare inherently and authori-
collectivist
tarian.Actually,someofthewritersKloppenbergadmiresweresocial organicists; butlike
Mumfordtheysoughtan organicismthatavoideda repressivecollectivism.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
110 RobertCasillo

Mumford
crypto-fascism?68 preferstothinkofsociety notas dividedinto
antagonisticgroupsbutas a comparatively integrated and cooperative
whole."Unity," hewrites, "underlieseven conflictsbetween thedominant
sinceeach resolution
forcesof society, of thesisand antithesis in turn
producesa synthesis whichreconciles theirclaimsin a newemergent
pattern."Marx'sbeliefthatclass conflict determines historical change
is thusforMumford of
a betrayal Hegel'semphasis on reconciliation,
mutuality,
reciprocity, andthe"organicunityofnaturalandsocialpro-
Dismissing
cesses."69 the"utopiaofthepartisan" as a "fetish,"Mumford
deniesthattheonlyfundamental modern problem is the"laborproblem"
andthatitscureliesin theownership ofproduction bya groupor class.
In no sensean "organicentity" or "truesocialgroup,"theproletariat
amounts to"arbitrary collectionsofindividuals"unified notby"common
functions"-as incraftsmen ofthesameguild-butbya "common collec-
tivesymbol ofloyalty andhate."70 Mumford's alternative is a functional
societyin whichall "non-parasitic" economicgroupsare harmonized
withinwhatsomemightviewas theinherently repressive anddishonest
categoryof"producer." Despitesomerevolutionary-sounding pronounce-
ments in the Mumford
1930s, is no revolutionary. Reminiscent ofGed-
des'sheroCarlyle,Mumford's principleof"organic filiation"enableshim
to viewsocialhistory as a continuous development similarto organic
life.71
It is a mistake,though, to supposethatMumford sharesthedesire
ofmanyconservatives or self-identical
fora static,authoritarian, social
harmony. His ideal,likeCooley's,is alwaysa "dynamicequilibrium"
of diverseelements. Neverdoes he stressmutualities or thefunctional
integration ofgroupsto thepointofconceiving anysocietyas perfectly
harmonious or immune or change:the"variouselements
to conflict in a
civilizationareneverincomplete forthereis alwaysa "tug
equilibrium,"
and pullof... life-destroying and thelife-conserving
functions ones."72
Mumford oftenquestions notsimplywhether a societycan achievethe
perfection of a normative totality-inshort,a utopia-butwhether it
oughtto wantto do so. As fortheidea of theindividual as a social
microcosm, whichimpliestheperfect harmony between innerandouter,
and whichsomecommunitarians assumed,Mumford espousesit in his
Emersonian moments yetrealizes that evenin handicraftperiodsthe
divisionoflaborprevented itsfulfilment.
Mumford's distancefrombu-
reaucratic collectivismcanbe inferredfromhiscritique ofSpencer'sdefi-
68 JamesT. Farrell,"The Faith of Lewis Mumford,"in The League of Frightened

Philistines(New York, 1949), 108-9,116-18,121-22,122n; MeyerSchapiro,"Looking

Forwardto LookingBackward,"21, 23.
69
Mumford,The Conduct,224-25.
70 Mumford,The Story,240, 245; Mumford,Technics,191.

7" Mumford,The Story,304; Mumford,The Golden,113.

72
Mumford,Technics,64.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 111
nition oflifeas the"continuous adjustment" ofinnertoexternal relations.
Mumford adds thepotentially democratic principlethattheorganism
mustalsoshapeitsenvironment according toitsinnerneeds.73 Although
attracted tosocialfunctionalism andtheconcept ofpositiveliberty,Mum-
ford'srefusal tostresssocialobligationsovertherights ofindividuals and
groupsis sufficient to dissociatehimfromfascist corporatism. Likewise
hisorganicist insistenceon therelative autonomy ofregionsand social
institutionsis an attempt to mediatedemocratically between statepower
andtheindividual.
Yet it is not altogether incomprehensible thatMumford has been
accusedofauthoritarianism andbureaucratic conservatism,sincehewas,
forat leasta decade,tempted bysomething resembling managerial collec-
tivism. Duringthe1930s,thedecadeofTechnics and Civilization
andThe
Cultureof Cities,Mumford advocateda plannedeconomy, regulation,
and evennationalization oflanduse,and thecreation ofa "service"or
welfare stateas an alternativeto thepowerstateofpreceding periods.
Profoundly impressed bytheSovietUnion,Mumford assertsthe"collec-
tive"interest andthe"collective" will.74
Despitehisinsistence on demo-
craticparticipation, regionalautonomy, and regionalfederalism, Mum-
a
ford's massive enterpriserequires high degree of centralized,
bureaucratic control-notopenbutclosedplanning. Justas a "bolder
socialeconomy willtoucheveryaspectoftheindustrial complex," so it
is necessaryto "rationalizeindustry ... withreference
organically, to the
entiresocialsituation."Notwithstanding theorganicist rhetoric,thisis a
formula forbureaucracy.75 LikeVeblenandGilbert's Mum-
collectivists,
fordisdrawntotechnocracy, envisioninga "well-managed under
society"
thesupervision of expertsin "humanengineering." Whenhe refers to
socialcontrol,"
"intelligent itis unclearwhether society is thecontrolling
agentorthecontrolled subject.76 Forall hisdisdainofBellamyite utopias
militaristically
organized andonesidedly focused onindustrial production,
duringthisperiodMumford fetishizesproductivityand efficiency and
admiresFrederick TaylorandEltonMayo.As CaseyBlakesays,Mum-
fordconfused organicism withorganization."
Thereis a further irony.AlthoughMumford's majorworksof the
1930sdisprove thetheory oftechnological determinism andalthough he
insiststhattechnology is properly subordinate to socialvalues,uses,and
ends,themachine standsatthecenter ofhisvisionofsocialreconciliation.
Mumford arguesthatthe environmentally destructive industryof the

The Culture,322; Mumford,The Conduct,36.

73 Mumford,
74 Mumford,Technics,380, 383, 403, 417; Mumford,The Culture,348.
75 Mumford,The Culture,375, 377, 380; Mumford,Technics,390, 413.
Technics,404, 411.
76 Mumford,
" Mumford,Technics,270, 271, 275, 383-85;Casey Blake,"Lewis Mumford:Values
overTechnique,"Democracy,3 (1983), 131-32.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
112 RobertCasillo

nineteenth century is beingreplacedbymoreefficient andflexible"neo-

technic"inventions suchas steel,aluminum, electricity,thedynamo, the
airplane, andtheautomobile. Tendinginherently towardsocialintercon-
nections, regionalism, and "basic communism," thesemachines, once
placedinthehandsofengineers andfreed from wasteful canons
capitalist
(as Veblentoo had hoped)mustvirtually achievewhatamountsto a
biotechnic utopia.78
Mumford's utopiaof the 1930ssuggests someof thedangersKarl
Popperclaimsto findin all organicist andutopianthinking. Identifying
organicism withtheutopianimpulsetotally to recastsocietyin contrast
withpatient,liberal,piecemealimprovement, Popperarguesthatthe
wholesaleapplication of theorganicmetaphor leads to regimentation,
hierarchy, authoritarian elitism,andthesacrifice oftheindividual to the
collective. Thefirst architect oftheclosedsocietywasPlato,whofeared
changeand lovedpermanence. Admiring theorganicbodyas a fixed
hierarchy (reason,emotion, vegetable nature),hesoughttomodelsociety
uponthebodybutso rigidly as to arresttheorganictendency to growth
anddecay.As thereisnothing comparable toclassconflict inanorganism,
so thereis noclassconflict inan organicsociety. Eachgrouphasitsplace
andfunction, beinggoverned bya technocratic eliteofguardians trained
in wisdom.Ironically, theorganicsocietyor at leastPopper'sversion of
it leadsto mechanical rigidityand control-apattern inciden-
fulfilled,
tally,in Carlyleand Ruskin.79
Evenintothe1950sMumford sometimes envisions culturalregenera-
tionas resulting frommessianic inspiration or a humanistic priesthood.
Sinceitclaimscultural expertise thisbodyseemsinorganic,
foritself, and
itsmembers might become Stalinesque "engineers of souls."During this
decadeMumford isstillfascinatedbyindustrial management andbysocial
projects thatmustinvolvelargescale,centralized planning. However, by
the1960sherejects technocracy andseesutopiasas inherently totalitarian,
static,andmechanical-anargument Poppermayhaveinfluenced.80 But
unlikePopper,Mumford doesnotrejectorganicism as inherentlyutopian
andtotalitarian. He holdsthatwhenPlatoattempted tocreatehisorganic
society,his inadequateconceptof theorganicled himto mechanism.
UnlikeAristotle, whosemethodresembled thatofa gardener or experi-
mentalbiologist, themathematizing Platoneveraskedhimself whether
"perfection ... wasinfactan attribute oforganic life."Insteadofcooper-
atingwithNature,this"button-molder" simplifiedlifeaftera "geometric
absolute."Sacrificing the individualto the group,he falselydeduced

Technics,212-67,281, 354,400; Blake,"Values overTechnique,"129-31.

78 Mumford,
79Karl Popper,The OpenSocietyand Its Enemies(Princeton,1963), 1: 12, 18,20, 21,
36, 40, 50-51,56, 70, 77, 80, 100, 103, 141, 166, 173,262n.
80Mumford, TheCondition, 96-99;Mumford,TheCity,573; Mumford,Interpretations
and Forecasts:1922-1972(New York, 1973),288-89;Mumford,The Pentagon,219.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 113

class inequalityand vocationalspecializationfromindividuals'unequal

In short,Plato identified
talents.81 theorganicwithhierarchy, proportion,
symmetry: staticqualitiesimposablefromwithout.But Mumfordnow
it withqualitiesamenableto open plans:spontaneity,
decisivelyidentifies
patience,immanentdevelopment, voluntaryparticipation,and cooper-
ation.

Mumford'sattackon utopianismparallelshis decisivedevaluationof

the role of machineryin shapingthe organiccommunity. Althoughhe
doesnotdenytheusefulness ofneotechnic inventions,he refusestoempha-
size themonesidedly, and indeedhe acknowledgestheirrolein increasing
conurbationand social disorder.Thereis, says Mumford,no mechanical
devicecapable ofeffecting a moral"transformation" amongindividuals,
and meremechanicalprogresswill not automaticallyimproveman's es-
tate.82Whereasin the 1930sMumfordhad greetedneotechniccommuni-
cationswithexcessiveenthusiasm, in 1945he deploresrelianceon commu-
nications technologyas a substitutefor moralityand higher goals.
Notwithstanding his admissionin 1967 of the unlikelypossibilitythat
modem technologymay help to restorethe organiccity,in 1970 he
excoriatesMcLuhan's idea oftheglobalvillage.83 Yet ifrenewaldepends
on neitherthe state nor technocracynor machinery,on what does it
depend?Mumfordappeals in greatpart to the inwardrealmof ethics,
morality, religion,poetry,and craft,to thosefewindividualswho,having
resistedtheindustrial, bureaucratized, and specializedworld,are capable
of rejectingits conformist mechanismsand automatisms.The firststep
towardrenewalis the recoveryof "innerautonomy"-the autonomy,
however,notofthenineteenth-century liberaltheorist'satomizedindivid-
ual but of a responsibleand socializedmoralagent.In accordancewith
Mumford'sassumptionof the social self,the nextstepis the "returnto
the group,"the gathering of like-minded individualsin small associated
nuclei.84Here one sees the importanceof WilliamMorristo the later
Mumford,forMorrisespousedneitherreactionary medievalismnor col-
lectivismbut a guild-type socialismbased on voluntaryassociationsand
local needs.Like Mumford,Morrisplaceshis hopeson humantraitsthat
are "stillactive,"in families,communities, and individuals.
institutions,
As forthemachine,MorrisinspiresMumford'sargumentthatit should
be used chieflyto eljiminate drudgery and to makeroomforthosehandi-
craftartswhich,forMumford,are the guaranteeof autonomy.85
Yet theseprojectswerecomplicatedbytherealitiesofpost-warsociety

81 Mumford,The City,174, 177, 183, 184.

82 Mumford,
The Conduct,4-5.
83 Mumford,
The Pentagon,293-99.
84 Mumford,
The Conduct,255, 274.
85 Mumford,
The Pentagon,155, 156, 355-56.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114 RobertCasillo

andbyMumford's mounting pessimism towardtechnology in the1950s

and 1960s.In hisearlierworksMumford hadidentified modern technol-
ogyprimarily withthemachine. Now, like his great rival Jacques Ellul,
Mumford seesit as an interlockingsystem ofmachines, techniques, bu-
reaucrats, armies, andadministrative
scientific elites-a "megamachine"
madeupofinorganic andhumancomponents. Moreover, although Mum-
fordhad earlierrejectedthe theoryof autonomous technology as an
explanation of Westerndevelopment, his laterwritings comeclose to
Ellul'sthesisthateverything in modemmasssocietyhas necessarily be-
comesituated in relationto technology anditsimpersonal valuesofeffi-
ciencyand organizedintelligence. At once purposeless, unpredictable,
self-augmenting, morallyindifferent, anti-or non-ideological, and ever
encroaching, technology hasinEllul'sviewbecomeautonomous.86 To be
sure,Mumford hadapproached thisposition as earlyas 1934,in Technics
andCivilization, referringtothesocialcollectivism "imposed" bymodem
technics, and observing thatmachinestendto be used regardless of
whether thesituation demandsit.87But generally Mumford tendedto
thinklessintermsofa technological system thanofindividual machines
whose value depends on theiruse-the banal defense of technology-and
moreparticularly upontheirliberation fromcapitalist canons.However,
in the 1960sMumford's outlookchanges.Notingtheincreasing "nar-
rowing" ofchoicesto thetechnological, he fearfully suggests thatmanis
integrated within a technologicalsystem whichdestroys all otheraltema-
tives.Justas themegamachine reducesdemocracy (and socialism)to
an ideological masquerade, so thetechniques ofmodemcommunication
forestall
dialogue. Indeed,howcouldthemessiah nowexpress hismessage
exceptthrough technology? LikeEllul,Mumford fearsthatanyattempt
to resolvethesocialimpassemustrelyon technological solutionsand
musttherefore reentrench thetechnology. To quoteTheCityinHistory:
"Theveryeffort toescapefromMegalopolis blocksall itsroads.Nothing
can happenin thenewtypeofinfra-urban societyunlessit can be done
bymassorganization," whichinevitably implicates themachine."88
The technological system confronts Mumford withother,no lessse-
veredifficulties.His hopesfortherestoration oftheorganiccommunity
dependontherestoration ofthehumanessence, whichhedefines interms
of the responsesand aboveall the intelligent purposes humanity has
developed through theevolutionary processandinitssymbiotic transac-
tionswiththenaturalenvironment. It followsthatto restorehuman
naturetheenvironment mustalso be restored. But as Ellul pointsout,
technology no longer mediates Nature to man: ithasreplacedthenatural

Society,tr.John
ThePentagon,263-99;JacquesEllul, The Technological
86 Mumford,

Wilkinson(New York, 1964),passim.

87 Mumford,Technics,281, 240.
The City,512, 554.
88 Mumford,The Pentagon,159; Mumford,

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LewisMumford 115

andthusimposed uponhumanity unprecedented Evenworse,

adaptations.
thenaturalworldtorestore
itallowsneither normanto reestablish
itself
a symbiotic withit.89
relation Although in TheCultureofCitiesMumford
hadsaidthatthe"notionthatmodemtechnology theimpor-
haslessened
tanceofthenaturalhabitatis precisely
theoppositeofthetruth,"bythe
1960she acknowledgesthatorganicforms beingreplaced
areconstantly
by "ingeniousmechanical... substitutes."90
The gravestconsequenceof
thesedevelopments is that,in fixingmanwithina foreign environment
incommensurable withNature,theyrender hisevolutionary traitsirrele-
vantto theurgent necessity eitherofadaptingto or,whatis lesslikely,
of revolting againstthetechnological system.It shouldbe addedthat
Mumford's appealto humanity's evolutionarily acquiredpurposiveness
as a finaldefense againsttechnological deformations is basedon a neo-
Lamarckian teleology fewscientists can nowaccept.
NoraretheseMumford's His faithintherecovery
onlydifficulties. of
theorganiccommunity stemsfromhisprofound beliefin thecontinuity
ofhumansocialhistory andinthecapacity ofhistorytoyieldinsight into
humanity's authentic socialnature.The pastteachesthelessonthatthe
primary groupisthevitalnucleusandbuilding blockofanorganic society
savedfrom onesided mechanism. Ideallythisgroupis madeupofautono-
mousindividuals-free moralagentscapableof withdrawing fromthe
groupvoluntarily (likegoodEmersonians) and ofcritically judgingand
evenrebelling againstthesurrounding society.Appealing tothepresumed
transhistoricalor at leastpost-neolithic realityoftheprimary groupand
theautonomous individual,Mumford likesto comparethepresent situa-
tionto ancientRome,whenscattered yetindestructiblecommunities of
disaffectedindividuals provided newsourcesofspiritual growth amidthe
deaththroesoftheRomanbureaucracy.9' According to Ellul,however,
itis uselessto lookto thepastforsolutions to thetechnological society,
whichisincomparable toanypastform ofsocialorganization, notevento
Mumford's farmorecumbersome Egyptian "megamachine." Ellulfurther
pointsoutthatin thepastitwaspossiblefortheindividual to withdraw
to a placewheretechnique did notintrude, whereasnowhe cannotes-
cape.92One ofthelaterMumford's majorcontradictions liesin placing
historicalfaithin the morallyautonomous or spontaneous individual
when(as Mumford often admits)technology hasdeveloped incomparably
sophisticated methods fortheshapingofthepersonality through propa-
ganda(or advertising) and administrative routine, thusrobbing mostof
humanity ofgenuine inwardness and subjectivity.So too,despiteMum-
the
ford'sappealto primary group, he admits thattheneotechnic village

63, 79.
89 Ellul, The Technological,
90Mumford,The Culture,313; Mumford,The City,527.
ofMan
91 Mumford,The Transformations (New York, 1956), 178-88.
92 78.
Ellul, The Technological,

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
116 RobertCasillo

underthetechnological
is disappearing and thateverywhere
onslaught,
the "safeguards"of the "ruraland communalunderlayer" have van-
ished.93 savebytechnology
As theseare notlikelyto be reconstructed,
(perhapsas a sortof themepark),Mumford's lastworks,forall their
intermittentoptimism,leaveone witha visionof thedisappearance of
man,ofnormative humanity-in short,ofourpostmodern, posthistoric
condition.

ofMiami.
University

93 Mumford,The Pentagon,346, 351.

This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:52:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions