of 19
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
1/19
DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE MACHINE: PATRICK GEDDES, LEWIS MUMFORD,
AND CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
CHRIS RENWICK AND RICHARD C. GUNN
This paper reconsiders the work of the Scottish biologist, sociologist, and town plannerPatrick Geddes and his most famous intellectual disciple: the American independent scholarLewis Mumford. It is argued that existing interpretations of their work, ranging from a dis-missal of the two men as eccentric polymaths to the speculative emphasis on the importanceof psychological theories in Mumfords oeuvre, are fundamentally flawed. Examining theirwritings and the letters they exchanged during their 17-year correspondence, this papershows that the only way we can appreciate the scholarly conventions underpinning Geddessand Mumfords work, as well as the context in which it was produced, is by looking to the
principles of classical sociological theory. 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
In April 1932 the Scottish biologist, sociologist, and town planner Patrick Geddes(18541932) wrote the final letter of his 17-year correspondence with the American inde-
pendent scholar Lewis Mumford (18951990). Aged 78 and in increasingly poor health,
Geddes sensed that he had only a short time left. Remember, he told Mumford, [I] have
none like you, but you, to be my heir . . . so you must take over much of my further Sociology
(Geddes to Mumford, 2 April 1932, Novack, 1995, p. 339). In this paper we will show how
largely neglected statements such as these are crucial for our understanding of Geddess and
Mumfords writings. Our claim is that the conventional scholarly underpinnings of their work
and the often-forgotten context in which it was produced can be appreciated only by looking
to the principles of classical sociological theory.
Both Geddess and Mumfords prodigious output on a wide array of subjects has resulted
in them often being described as polymaths. Geddes began his career in the mid-1870s as a
student of the biological sciences under T. H. Huxleythe archetypal Victorian man of
sciencein London. However, Geddes became widely known for a diverse range of activities.
Amongst the most renowned elements of his work were the popular science publications he
co-authored with his former student J. Arthur Thomson. These writings included their 1889
bookThe Evolution of Sex, which is now viewed as one of the first comprehensive studies of
the role of sex in the organic world. Yet Geddess reputation also stemmed from his work on
a large number of other subjects, including statistics, economics, and art criticism, as well as
his role as one of the most important figures in British sociology at the beginning of the twen-
tieth century. However, it is for his impact on town planning in the United Kingdom that he is
most celebrated, with his 1915 bookCities in Evolution now being seen as hugely significant
in shaping the field. In that monograph, Geddes outlinedcivics: a theory of town planning he
regarded as a form of applied sociology, which called for minds to be focused on the social
Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 44(1), 5976 Winter 2008
Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/jhbs.20282
2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
CHRIS RENWICK is a graduate student working towards a PhD in the School of Philosophy atthe University of Leeds, United Kingdom. His research interests are in the history of the social
sciences and his doctoral dissertation examines the early disciplinary history of sociology in Britain.E-mail: C.P.M. [email protected]
RICHARD C. GUNN is a graduate student in the School of Philosophy at the University of Leeds,United Kingdom. His research interests are in the philosophy of technology, including the work of Karl
Marx and Max Weber. He is currently completing his doctoral dissertation examining the concept ofmachine with particular focus on theories of bureaucracy E-mail: Richardcgunn@hotmail com
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
2/19
60 CHRIS RENWICK AND RICHARD C. GUNN
consequences of the poor condition of the urban environments inhabited by large numbers of
people in the post-Industrial Revolution age. Embracing so many f ields during a period that
is often understood as one of professionalization and specialization, Geddes is, historio-
graphically speaking, a polarizing figure. As Alex Law has noted, Geddes has come to be such
an inspiration for some scholars that their assessments of his achievements often border onthe hagiographic (Law, 2005). Yet for others, Geddes is someone to be dismissed as either an
amateur or an eccentric (Abrams, 1968; Hawthorn, 1976). Consequently, there is a lack of his-
torically sophisticated or critically engaged analyses of Geddess work.
Scholars have also struggled in similar ways to make sense of Mumford, who was the
most famous of Geddess disciples. Like Geddes, Mumford is known in a number of fields,
including literary criticism and history and philosophy of technology, and, partly as a conse-
quence of his decision to work outside the institutional confines of the academy, he is consid-
ered to be somewhat of a dilettante. The concerns with which he is most frequently associated,
though, are architecture and city development. Mumford first signalled his interest in these
areas in 1923, when he helped found the Regional Planning Association of America, and thenin 1931, when he began what would turn out to be a 32-year role as the writer of the Skyline
column for theNew Yorkermagazine. The burgeoning reputation he had earned through those
activities as a historically-minded commentator on contemporary issues was confirmed during
the highly productive middle years of his life when he published a quartet of books he called
the Renewal of Life series, which appeared between 1934 and 1951 and featured the celebrated
Technics and Civilization andThe Culture of Cities. Then, in the later stages of his career,
mainly through his critique of what he calledMegatechnicalsociety, Mumford became popu-
lar with political radicals. As a consequence, he has come to be regarded as a polemicist whose
writings are bound up with a paranoid opposition to the state in Cold War America. This per-
ception of Mumford, however, obscures the fact that much of his most famous work conformed
to the highest standards of the respectable fields of which they were a part. Indeed, Mumford
demonstrated his scholarly pedigree when he was awarded the prestigious American National
Book Award for non-fiction, in 1962, for his workThe City in History.
While the impact that Geddes had on Mumford has been well documented (Mumford,
1982; Novack, 1995), the subtle yet significant way that Geddess sociology shaped Mumfords
work has largely passed without comment. Scholars have been content to look no further than
Mumfords use of Geddesian vocabulary and instead have attempted to find other sources to
provide a structure for his writings. Eugene Rochberg-Halton, for example, argues that, while
Mumfords ideas can be located within a recognizable sociological context, they should be
understood only as an organicist alternative to structuralism, post-modernism, and classical the-
ory (Rochberg-Halton, 1990). Alternatively, more recent attempts to understand Mumfords
work suggest that his interpretation of psychological theories were of the utmost importance in
shaping his writings, especially those on technology. Greg Morgan-Swer argues that it is only
through an appreciation of Sigmund Freuds ideas that we can fully grasp how Mumfords
Megamachine operates (Morgan-Swer, 2003, 2004). Even more speculatively, Adam Green
suggests that it is in fact Carl Jung who provides the key to interpreting Mumfords work on
Megatechnics (Green, 2006). While these accounts may tell us something of what Mumford
read, they completely ignore the Geddesian roots of Mumfords organicist sociology. The result
of such a glaring oversight is that little is known about the theoretical assumptions underpinning
not just Mumfords work on technology but also his canon in its entirety.
In the following five sections of this paper, we will challenge existing interpretations of
Geddes, Mumford, and their relationship by demonstrating that we can only understand these
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
3/19
DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE MACHINE 61
the historiography of Geddes and early British sociology through our rejection of the idea that
sociologists in the United Kingdom eschewed the theoretical principles embraced by their
more celebrated European counterparts. Contrary to those who maintain that he failed to sep-
arate the subject from other sciences (Meller, 2000, p. 39), we will show that Geddes possessed
a systematic framework of sociology. In this respect, our argument shares common groundwith the work of Maggie Studholme, who has recently called for Geddes to be reclaimed by
sociologists as one of their own (Studholme, 2007). However, our account differs from
Studholmes through its systematic consideration of the underlying features of Geddess writings,
particularly his ontology of the social, which parallel those of sociologys classical canon.
Second, by drawing on their correspondence, we will highlight the deficiencies in the accounts
of Geddess and Mumfords relationship by showing how sociology was a major concern and
subject of discussion for them both. Having reconsidered their relationship in this way, we will
then contribute to the scholarship on Mumford by demonstrating that he must be thought of as
a writer who systematically employed the theories, methods, and ontology of classical sociology.
In the second section, we will explore Geddess sociology and demonstrate that, throughhis engagement with the problem of defining the subject matter of the field, he developed a
sophisticated framework for his sociology that shared important theoretical assumptions with
his more celebrated contemporaries, such as Emile Durkheim. In the third section, we will
outline how a deep interest in sociology manifested itself not only in Geddess and Mumfords
lengthy exchange of letters but also in Mumfords subsequent work. By drawing attention, in
section four, to a distinction between Mumfords pre- and post-World War II writings, we
then show that his later work, particularly hisMyth of the Machine series, was reliant upon
the same ontological assumptions as classical sociology. These continuities with classical
theory, we will conclude, were the result of Mumfords immersion in Geddess approach to
social investigation. However, so that its significance can later be seen, we must first explain
what we mean when we refer to classical sociological theory.
1. CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Sociology is not the appendage of any other science, wrote Emile Durkheim, it is itself
a distinct and autonomous science (Durkheim, 1895/1982, p. 162). This attempt to explicitly
define sociology as a scientific discipline in its own right reflects the most fundamental aim
of the fields classical approach. Such a science, argued Durkheim and his contemporaries,
including Max Weber and Ferdinand Tnnies, could study the means by which social stabil-
ity and change come about. In this sense, contemporary sociologists often portray classical
sociologists and their desire to look beyond exclusively materialist explanations as respond-
ing to Karl Marxs understanding of social and economic change. However, to conceive of
classical sociology as dealing with solely economic change and its effects is far too narrow
an understanding.
In the broadest sense of the term, classical sociology takes as its subject matter the social in-
stitution: be it the city, the family, or religion. However, the classical sociologist does not study
the institution as an end in itself but uses it to locate the underlying structural features of a given
society. For example, Durkheims analyses of suicide and the division of labor reveal the im-
port of social solidarity, while Webers study of bureaucracy demonstrates the nature of power
and rationality. The classical sociologist argues that it is through these structural principles that we
can understand how social order is maintained, particularly in the face of rapid social change.
Central to this classical approach to analyzing society is the belief that a distinct class of
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
4/19
Durkheim who most famously attempted to substantiate this particular ontology by demon-
strating, inRules of Sociological Method(1895/1982), what constitutes thesocial, and how it
should be studied. Sociology operates, he argued, at a supra-individual level and only as such
can it be considered distinct from other sciences including biology and psychology
(Durkheim, 1982, pp. 3940). According to Durkheims account, sociology is simply the sys-tematic method of studying social facts, which he defined as external forces that act upon the
individual and constrain his or her action. The significant ontological point about
Durkheimian social facts is that they have a distinct reality and, he argued, should be treated
as such (Durkheim, 1982, p. 60).
In Suicide, his most important sociological work, Durkheim demonstrated how social
facts should be considered as things existing at a social level (Durkheim, 1897/1952). While
that volume can be viewed as an exemplar of statistical methods and quantification, such a
description grasps only Durkheims methodology and not his overall concerns. Like The
Division of Labour(1893/1984), Suicides substantive theme is social solidarity and how it is
maintained in the face of rapid social change. Social solidarity is sustained by the coercivepower of social forces acting upon individuals and therefore it is a concern that cannot be sep-
arated from Durkheims methodological and ontological commitments. Psychological moti-
vations are unable to account for the constancy of the suicide rate in society and thus his main
premise is that suicide is not simply an individual act but a social phenomenon. Through this
approach, it becomes apparent that social solidarity has an objective status and can be studied
as a social fact equivalent to any physical phenomenon. As a consequence, Durkheims analysis
operates at a level that is only capable of comprehending the individual as part of a larger
social whole: the individual is confined and constrained by forces and ideas not of his own
making (Durkheim, 1982, pp. 5052). Ontologically, we can therefore see him as a realist
about things such as social forces and collective representations.
The Durkheimian method is typical of classical sociological theory in that it permits gen-
eralizations and broad distinctions among categoriessomething that was exemplified in The
Division of Labourwith Durkheims distinction between mechanical and organic solidarity
(1984, chaps. 23). This kind of approach is also key in Webers ideal type methodology where
typical features of the bureaucracy are outlined and distinctions made between, for example,
traditional and legal-rational types of domination (Weber, 1956/1968, pp. 215216). Such gen-
eralizations are also employed extensively in Tnniess distinction between community and
society in which formalized, contractual relations of society come to replace the informal ties
of communities (Tnnies, 1887/1955, pp. 3739). Given that the late nineteenth-century societies
these thinkers were studying had been subject to sweeping changes in short periods of time,
the making of broad generalizations is only to be expected. As a method of social investigation,
sociology was expected to possess the methodological and ontological tools to grasp such pre-
vailing trends in collective life. Classical sociological theorists therefore became dedicated to
outlining the underlying principles that demarcated the new industrialized society from any
previous form. In so doing, sociologists forged the identity of their science by offering a spe-
cific understanding of these social phenomena. Turning now to the work of Patrick Geddes, we
will show how these characteristics of classical sociology manifested themselves in the writ-
ings of someone often thought of as far removed from the classical canon.
2. PATRICKGEDDES AND CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGY
In France and Germany of the early twentieth century, wrote the prominent American
62 CHRIS RENWICK AND RICHARD C. GUNN
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
5/19
DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE MACHINE 63
society and tried to envisage modern society within the species of all the societies known to
history. In Britain, however, Shils continued, sociology gathered the soft dust of libraries
and bathed in the dim light of ancestral idolatry. Here and there during these sociologically
sterile decades, there was a momentary pulse of life but it never spread and the air of death soon
reasserted itself (Shils, 1985, p. 166). Since the publication of Talcott Parsonss The Structureof Social Action in 1937 there has been a persistent view of British sociology as the inferior
relation to its European and American counterparts. Absent from all U.K. universities except
the London School of Economics before the end of World War II, British sociology has been
seen as theoretically bankrupt and portrayed by some as evidence of a national failing
(Anderson, 1968). Indeed, the writings of British sociologists are still rarely studied abroad
because, as the French sociologist Dominique Schnapper recently put it, the United Kingdom
does not have any of the founding fathers who institutionalised the discipline. There are no
Britons among the turn of the century generation . . . i.e., Weber, Durkheim or Pareto
(Schnapper, 2005, p. 109).
While it is true that British sociologys strength has always been empirical investigations,the historical picture with regard to the fields theoretical concerns is somewhat more com-
plicated than received views suggest.1 During the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen-
turies, the British were enthusiastic participants with an international outlook in the Europe-wide
debate about the methods, scope, and aims of sociology. For example, at the Sociological
Society, founded in 1903, social and natural scientists came together at the recently estab-
lished London School of Economics in an effort to formulate and promote a program, for
sociology in the United Kingdom. As well as receiving contributions from key British
thinkers, including the eugenicist and biostatistician Francis Galton and the first British pro-
fessor of sociology, L. T. Hobhouse, the Society heard contributions from such luminaries as
Durkheim and Tnnies. Indeed, as Stefan Collini and Sandra Den Otter have both shown, an
important part was played in those discussions by the British Idealists, a large and important
group of thinkers and writers, including Bernard Bosanquet, who were inspired by the Oxford
philosopher T. H. Green to develop organicist political and social philosophies (Collini, 1978;
Den Otter, 1996). Moreover, as Lawrence Goldmans recent historical survey has shown,
scholars such as Anderson have often failed to appreciate that many of the celebrated conti-
nental thinkers of the classical period were envious of their British counterparts in sociology
(Goldman, 2007).
Alongside Galton and Hobhouse, Patrick Geddes was, as R. J. Halliday and Philip
Abrams showed some time ago, one of the most important f igures involved in the early shap-
ing of sociology in the United Kingdom (Halliday, 1968; Abrams, 1968). Although Geddes
had begun his career in the late 1870s as a biologist, he had become widely known from the
1880s onwards as a writer on the social sciences. Having immersed himself in the writings of,
1. Clarification must be given here concerning Herbert Spencer, whom many regard as the only Briton worthy of aplace in the history of sociology. As the multi-volume Synthetic Philosophy series more than amply demonstrated,Spencer was a great theorizer, and thus his work further supports our refutation of the claim that British sociologywas entirely empirical. However, he belongs to the generation of writers preceding that under consideration here.Spencer and his contemporaries, including August Comte, are considered important by current sociologists as writerswho helped to establish and popularize the idea of a distinct science of society called sociology. Durkheim, Weber,and others writing at the very end of the nineteenth century are perceived by current sociologists to be the first to
systematize the subject matter and methods of the discipline as it is now understood. Spencers role in the history ofsociology is thus different in kind to those examined here. While sympathetic re-readings of Spencer should addfurther depth to the particular aspect of our argument forwarded here, it is in essence a diversion from our main aims
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
6/19
64 CHRIS RENWICK AND RICHARD C. GUNN
among others, August Comte, Herbert Spencer, and the French social surveyor Frdric Le
Play, Geddess greatest interest was sociology and he dedicated much of his early work to
the contemporary debates around it.2 Believing that the development of the subject was of
huge importance, Geddes argued that sociology was dependent on the ability of sociologists
to explain how it was distinct from existing ways of studying social phenomena. He insistedthat it was sociologys subject matter that differentiated it from other social sciences includ-
ing biology and psychology. All that concerns only the objective and bodily side of a man is
purely biological, Geddes explained in 1884, and this may be summed up for a number of
men, looked at simply as a herd or mass, without leaving the field of pure biology. Sociology,
however, dealt with a specific aspect of human existence that could not be studied by such
existing sciences. Sociology, he asserted, concerns itself with individualities of a higher
order:with aggregates of men integratedinto wholes for definite functions; as firm, bank,
company, regiment, post office, and only considers the individual components in relation to
these (Geddes, 18821884, p. 964).
While we now tend to think of him as a town planner whose activities were based aroundempirical social surveys, Geddesprofessor of sociology and civics at the University of
Bombay from 1919 to 1924was engaged for most of his life with the development of a
deeply sophisticated sociological theory that he believed would embrace all of his activities and
writings. As he told the Sociological Society in 1903, his work was a study of the community
as an integrate [sic], with material and immaterial structures and functions, which we call the
city (Geddes, 1904, p. 104). Geddes believed that there are a set of mutually dependent parts
that make society what it is: an industrial base, a set of institutions, and what he called an
associated system of ideals (Geddes, 1915, p. 66). Together these components form a com-
plex that affects people and their environment in a variety of ways, including in terms of
language, laws, and physical infrastructure, such as architecture or methods of transport.
Writing at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, Geddes
was, like many of his contemporaries in sociology, concerned with the effect of industrializa-
tion on the social order. Drawing an analogy with how we once thought of there being a single
Stone Age and later came to employ the terms Palaeolithic and Neolithic to distinguish
between eras with different characteristics, Geddes made one of his most important innovations
2. Geddess biographers all give accounts of the wide range of writings and groups, including the Positivist Churchin London, which he eagerly immersed himself in as a young man. See Defries (1927); Kitchen (1975); Mairet(1957); Boardman (1978); Meller (1990); Welter (2002). An exploration of these formative sources of inspiration is,
however, unnecessary for the purposes of our argument in this paper. It is worth noting, though, that one should notassumeas his biographers and other commentators often havethat because he read Comte, for example,Geddess subsequent intellectual life was somehow influenced by a passive acceptance of the positivist philosophy.Despite his divergence from strictly biological enquiries at the beginning of the 1880s, Geddes always thought ofhimself as being in some sense a biologist. As Mumford put it, it is not as a bold innovator in urban planning, butas an ecologist, the patient investigator of historic filiations and dynamic biological and social interrelationships, thatGeddes most important work on cities was done (Mumford, 1955, p. 111). Indeed, Geddess final monograph wasthe massive two-volume workLife: Outlines of General Biology (1932), which was co-authored with J. ArthurThomson. We must thus appreciate that throughout his life, Geddess assessment of the ideas he came into contactwith was always mediated by the framework of evolutionary naturalism he f irst developed as a young biologist. Forexample, his testimony (Geddes, 1926) and a letter sent by Richard Congreve, head of the London Positivist Church,to the Comtean political economist J. K. Ingramin which Congreve states that Geddes disagreed with him over
biological evolutiondemonstrate that Geddes exercised caution towards positivism because of the movementsscepticism of doctrines of biological evolution (Congreve, 1883). Moreover, the Le Playist triad of Place, Work,
Folk, which scholars see as being especially important to him, was frequently presented by Geddes asEnvironment, Function, Organism. Given the number of Comtes ideas appropriated by Herbert Spencer, it mayvery well be advisable for scholars to look to the Synthetic Philosophy, which was saturated by evolutionary thought,
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
7/19
DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE MACHINE 65
in social theory when he argued that there were two phases to industrialization. The neologisms
he coined to describe these industrial ages werePaleotechnic andNeotechnic: terms that have
subsequently become of huge importance in the study of technology.
According to Geddess analysis in his 1915 bookCities in Evolution, the Paleotechnic
and Neotechnic phases are associated systems of ideals of the kind described above. Theyhave specific technologies, industries, and forms of social organization associated with them,
and these manifest themselves in the world of ideas through particular political and social
doctrines. The Paleotechnic phase, he wrote, was made up of
collieries . . . together with the steam engine, and most of our staple manufactures . . . therailways and the markets, and above all the crowded and monotonous industrial towns towhich all these have given rise. . . . Their corresponding abstract developments have beenthe traditional political economy on the one hand, and on the other that general body ofpolitical doctrine and endeavour which was so clearly formulated, so strenuously appliedby the French Revolution and its exponents, but which in [Britain] has gone on bit by bitin association with our slower and longer Industrial Revolution. (Geddes, 1915, p. 64)
This relationship between material and immaterial sociological elements was one that
Geddes expended much time and effort trying to articulate. One of his favored methods was
what he calledthinking machines: a pedagogical tool he first created in 1879 as a new way of
understanding and visually representing the dynamic relationship between different objects
of study through systematising them on paper. A second and reciprocal of Geddess approaches
was the museum-style exhibition, which, in his hands, eschewed the conventional emphasis on
artifacts and instead took the form of a three-dimensional thinking machine. These exhibitions
were first conceived and developed by Geddes during the 1890s in a building called the
Outlook Tower. Located in the heart of Edinburgh and described in theAmerican Journal of
Sociologyby the Chicago-based sociologist Charles Zueblin as the worlds f irst sociologicallaboratory (Zueblin, 1899), the Outlook Tower was Geddess headquarters, which he used as
a venue to host activities and events promoting civics. In Figure 1, we can see a diagrammatic
representation of one of Geddess exhibitions at the Outlook Tower in 1910, which was drawn
by one of his closest associates, Victor Branford, who has recently received long-overdue schol-
arly attention from John Scott and Christopher T. Husbands (Branford, 1926; Scott and
Husbands, 2007).3 This exhibition was an example of Geddess attempt to elaborate on the
constituent parts of Paleotechnics and Neotechnics, including the transition between the two.
On the top left-hand side of the diagram, next to political economy, we can see the prominent
position of the natural sciences in the Paleotechnic order. Geddes believed the natural sciences
to be one of the most important developments of the Paleotechnic order but his assessment of
3. For more on thinking machines, including numerous reproductions, see Boardman (1976, pp. 465484). The di-agram of the exhibition used here first appeared in Victor Branfords paper The Background of Survival andTendency as Exposed in an Exhibition of Modern Ideas (1926), which was part of a special collection, includingan article by Geddes, entitled Coal: Ways to Reconstruction. Branford explained in a note at the beginning of the
paper how though now published for the first time, it was a work that dated back to lectures he had given inAmerica in 1911. The thesis of the paper, he wrote, was based on an Exhibition of material laid out by ProfessorGeddes at the Outlook Tower, Edinburgh, in 1910 (Branford, 1926, p. 207n). While this diagram was probablydrawn by Branford, it is a clear expression of Geddess ideas and work, specifically through its use of Geddess dis-tinctive sociological vocabulary (Eutopia, biotechnics, etc.); a structuring of ideas identical to those found in histwentieth-century private notes and published writings (for example: town-science-industry and the positioning of
electrical power in neotechnics); as well as the naming of writers, such as John Ruskin and William Morris, whosework Geddes admired and thought important enough to publish on. The diagram, as we present it here, thus servesas a visual representation of Geddes ideas about technics. See Branford (1926) for a description of the experience
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
8/19
66 CHRIS RENWICK AND RICHARD C. GUNN
FIGURE 1
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
9/19
its effects was always qualified. In an analysis that independently reflects the same concerns
as Webers important sociological work on the iron cage of instrumental rationality in modern
bureaucracy, Geddes described science as being very largely a matter of the advance of
notations. But a notation is not simply a thought-help; it also only too easily becomes a
thought-cage, hard to escape from (Geddes, 1915, p. 68). Aided by science, the Paleotechnicsocial mind is driven by a desire to count, weigh, and measure everything, and it considers that
which cannot be dealt with in such a way unimportant. As Paleotects, Geddes wrote, we
make it our prime endeavour to dig up coals, to run machinery, to produce cheap cotton, to
clothe cheap people, to get up more coals, to run more machinery, and so on; and all this
essentially towards extending markets (Geddes, 1915, p. 74).
The right and middle areas of the diagram of Geddess exhibition, shown in Figure 1, dis-
play the corresponding areas of political thought and social institutions. On the right we can
see how individuals, such as Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Malthus, David Hume, and Immanuel
Kant, and ideas or fields, such as imperialism and finance, are identified as having con-
tributed to the political doctrines that had dominated thought since the French and IndustrialRevolutions. What these various strands of political thought had in common, Geddes argued,
was their prioritization of the individual and his or her relationship to the state. The effect of
this focus of political and social thought was an atomized conception of society that had been
reinforced and promoted by a mutually supportive set of social institutions that are listed on
the diagram as school, prison, barrack, and factory.
Geddes own sociological analysis was developed as a challenge to the atomized social
thought he saw as being both mistaken and prevalent in his own time. In his view, the indi-
vidualist Paleotechnic order, regardless of its seeming financial success, creates a set of
circumstances that result in the deterioration of humans, the environment, and society. As he
wrote in 1915,
our industry but maintains and multiplies our poor and dull existence though we thushave produced, out of all this exhaustion of the resources of Nature . . . whole new conur-bations, towns, and pseudo-cities, these are predominantly . . . of Slum character . . . andin these the corresponding development of the various types of human deterioration con-gruent with such environment. (Geddes, 1915, pp. 7475)
This connection between economics, technology, ideas, and the social sphere is one that
Geddes represented in the top left-hand area of the exhibition, shown in Figure 1. He believed
that these aspects of the Paleotechnic age were dominated by a philosophy of competition that
created markets and ultimately led to the decaying city slum. Unemployment and constant
pressure to make ends meet were regular experiences for many people in such an environ-
ment and the consequences were phenomena such as crime and alcoholism. All of these things,
Geddes argued, were logically connected, inseparably connected, like the symptoms of a
disease (Geddes, 1915, p. 86). Hence, to those who are struggling with disease and pain,
with ignorance and defect, with vice, and with crime, he wrote, it is time to say that all these
four evils are capable of being viewed together, and largely even treated together (Geddes,
1905, p. 96).
As a reaction to the deterioration of society in the Paleotechnic age, Geddes believed that
there was an incipient order built around new industries, technologies and ideas about social
organization. This new phasethe Neotechnicwas to be characterized, he suggested, by the
better use of resources and population towards the bettering of man and his environmenttogether (Geddes, 1915, p. 73). The Neotechnic order has its roots in a realization that
DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE MACHINE 67
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
10/19
himself created. Instead of competing with one another in the ruthless drive to extend the
Paleotechnic market, the Neotechnic citizen understands that it is through cooperation that
quality of life increasessomething that is difficult to quantify and, therefore, has no place in
the Paleotechnic mind. People of the Neotechnic order, Geddes argued, control the resources
at their disposal for positive long-term benefits aimed at improving themselves and the worldaround them. This shift can be illustrated, he wrote, by the Neotechnic economist, who,
beginning with his careful economisation of national resources, his care, for instance, toplant trees to replace those that are cut down, and if possible a few more, is occupiedwith real savings. His forest is a true Bank, one very different from Messrs Rothschildscredit. (Geddes, 1915, p. 70)
As we can see in the bottom half of the diagram in Figure 1, this coming order was out-
lined by Geddes in terms of both the potential and the more concrete developments of his own
time. For example, we can see on the rightnext to the Neotechnic imperative of
Conservation of Resourceselectric power. Geddes thought that electric power would
eliminate the polluting aspects of Paleotechnic industry and therefore lead the way towards a
new world. Indeed, this was an argument of Geddess later taken on by Mumford that would
hold some sway in the debates about electrification in early twentieth-century America (Carey
& Quirk, 1979). By building a new set of industries based on a new power source, a new
associated system of ideals would arise, leading to what he called Eutopiaa place that was
like a utopia in every respect except that it really existedwhich we can see on the top left
of the Neotechnic half of the exhibition.
For Geddes, the crucial aspect of the Neotechnic order was the fact that it could only
come into being if people wanted it to. The route out of the Paleotechnic age was not a pas-
sive one, and it depended on a new and better understanding of the forces that shape society.
In this respect, the social sciences were of particular importance because they offered humans
the potential to comprehend and therefore guide the forces that mould them. Following this
conviction of Geddess, we can see, on the bottom right-hand side of Figure 1, that he posi-
tioned sociology within the Neotechnic order. Because it explained society at its very highest
level of organization, sociology was the science that he believed would play one of the most
significant roles in the transition from Paleotechnics.
This examination of Geddess writings has demonstrated that while many regard him as an
eccentric polymath, there was a well thought-out foundation to his wide-ranging work.
Furthermore, we must remind ourselves that, in developing the ideas that have been discussed in
this section, Geddes thought of himself as a sociologist. Presenting his work in forums such as
the Sociological Society, his writings show that he considered sociology to be an autonomousdiscipline with its own subject matter. Moreover, in arguing for an anti-atomistic sociology, as
well as asserting that the material and immaterial both have a distinct and equal reality, Geddess
conclusions were the same as classical sociologists such as Durkheim, whom we can find posi-
tioned on the bottom right of Figure 1. In the next section, we will examine the impact of these
ideas on Mumford, but in preparation for that analysis we will initially explore how he first came
to know Geddess writings. We will show that, while Geddes was active in a number of fields,
Mumford read and interpreted his work not as empirical town planning but as sociology.
3. GEDDES AND MUMFORD
According to his autobiography, the day that Mumford picked up a copy ofEvolution in
68 CHRIS RENWICK AND RICHARD C. GUNN
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
11/19
Geddes had co-authored the popular science book with J. Arthur Thomson for the Home
University series, Mumford identified without difficulty the writer whose voice called him.
Whereas Thomson wrote in a supple English style, Mumford observed that Geddess prose
was more crabbed and cryptic: his was the audacity of an original mind, never content
blindly to follow established conventions, still less fashions of the moment (Mumford, 1982,p. 145). Captivated by these writings, Mumford set about trying to find the author himself by
writing to the Outlook Tower in 1915. Explaining how to Edinburgh I have been attracted
by the sociological work of Professor Geddes, Mumford initially exchanged letters with the
architect F. C. Mearsone of Geddess principal assistants in Edinburghas Geddes had
recently relocated to India (Mumford to Outlook Tower, 15 November 1915, Novack, 1995,
p. 43). In 1917, however, Geddes wrote back to Mumford, beginning a relationship that would
last until Geddess death in 1932.
While the correspondence between Geddes and Mumford has been commented on
frequently, there is one important aspect of it that has largely gone without note: what Geddes
termed our main common interest of Sociology and Civics (Geddes to Mumford, 10 January1920, Novack, 1995, p. 61). As their relationship developed after 1917, Mumford increasingly
became part of Geddess circle in British sociology, even serving as editor of the Sociological
Review for six months in 1920 when he was living in Britain (see Mumford, 1982, pp. 252281).
With Geddes approaching the age of 70 at the beginning of the 1920s, he frequently discussed
with his enthusiastic American disciple what sociology would be like after he had passed. While
still enthralled by the master, as he often addressed Geddes in his letters, Mumford was con-
cerned both with the legacy that the increasingly cantankerous Scotsman seemed intent on
leaving and with how he expected others to deal with it. Mumford had come to consider the
Edinburgh School of Sociologyan aspirational term coined by Branford to describe
the group formed around Geddesto be intellectually unhealthy. Their problem, Mumford
diplomatically wrote to Geddes, was
the weakness of the Aristotelian school after Aristotle: the work of the founder has beenso comprehensive and magnificent and inspiring that it has in appearance left nothingfor the scholars to do except to go over and annotate and dilute the masters work.(Mumford to Geddes, 9 May 1921, Novack, 1995, p. 100)
This flaw was exacerbated by the fact that Geddes had never produced a sustained
and focused piece of work on sociological methodology, la Durkheims Rules of the
Sociological Method. Always a reluctant writer of books, managing only one as sole
author in his lifetime, Geddes constantly talked about his intention to produce a lengthy work
on sociology, but never did. This prolonged failure frustrated Mumford and he regularly
attempted to coerce Geddes into action. In 1921, for example, we find Mumford telling
him to
at least get the analysis of society articulated, and the method itself established, fromthis starting point the [social scientists] . . . may set forth, each following the directionas far as the method will carry them. (Mumford to Geddes, 31 July 1921, Novack, 1995,p. 108)
Mumford thought it important that peoples work was infusedwith the sound sociolog-
ical method, and illuminated by the general outlook, that [Geddes had] developed and his
own early writings can be understood in such terms (Mumford to Geddes, 9 May 1921,
Novack, 1995, p. 101). This interpretation was most clearly evidenced by Technics and
DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE MACHINE 69
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
12/19
70 CHRIS RENWICK AND RICHARD C. GUNN
publishing until after Geddess death.4 While Mumford never felt bound to respect the mere
letter of [Geddes] teaching, he did feel the necessity of avoiding conflict with his master as
he expanded on Geddess phases of technics (Mumford, 1940, p. 497). As well as adding a
third age called the Eotechnicthe forms of pre-industrial production characterized by the
use of wind and water as power sources and wood and stone as the main building materialsMumfords historiography of technology provided a far more detailed account of the
Paleotechnic phase than Geddes ever managed to produce. Addressing the specific techno-
logical advances that characterize the period and elaborating on its general worldview,
Mumford emphasized the significance of immaterial elements such as routinization and order
(Mumford, 1934, pp. 4142). Examining mechanical ways of thinking and avoiding the con-
ventional focus on artifacts, Mumfords history of technology was Geddesian in its concern
with modes of thought and social organization as fundamental to the stages of technics.
Even more than in Technics and Civilization, Mumford wrote in The Culture of Cities,
his first monograph on the subject, my chief intellectual debt is to my master, Patrick
Geddes (Mumford, 1940, p. 497). Utilizing the phases of technics, Mumford divided thehistory of the city into three stages: Eotechnic village life; the Paleotechnic industrial city,
which ultimately leads to the vast Megalopolis; and Neotechnic cities based on organic
principles and a more human scale. While this account was far more detailed than Geddess
own work, Mumford claimed, somewhat humbly, that his understanding of the city only
exceeded Geddess in one respect. With The Culture of Citiesbeing published over a quarter
of a century afterCities in Evolution, Mumford believed that he, unlike Geddes, had been able
to witness the development and growth of Neotechnic methods (Mumford, 1940, p. 498).
In both Technics and Civilization and the Culture of Cities, Mumford engaged in a
critique of the Paleotechnic world and welcomed the rise of Neotechnics. As with Geddess
writings, the normative aspect in Mumfords work therefore equates to a call for a renewalof life within a new phase of technics. The theme of organicism, as Robert Casillo quite
rightly claims, can be seen as stemming directly from Mumfords interpretation of Geddess
work (Casillo, 1992, pp. 9495). Indeed, as Leo Marx argues, at the most general level one
can understand all of Mumfords work as incorporating a single overriding ideal: the cham-
pioning of the organic over the mechanical (Marx, 1990, pp. 167, 172). Drawing on Geddess
observation that the Paleotechnic worldview is typified by a mechanistic, instrumentally
rational mode of thought, Mumford wrote at length about the rise in Europe of the
Mechanical Philosophy and the regimented armed forces, followed by the birth of industrial
methods. These factors constitute what Mumford termed the machine in his early work. He
argued that the rise of the machine was accompanied by the rise of the city, resulting in the
process of urban agglomeration, the formation of Megalopolis and, consequently, in the great
4. It would be uncontroversial to suggest that Mumfords output in the 1920s was not explicitly sociological in natureas he wrote on subjects such as American literature, utopias [sic], and architecture. One could interpret these worksas an expression of the young Mumfords desire to strike out on his own and not to be bound by the teachings of hismaster. Christopher Lasch argues that Mumford chose at that point in time to become a writer rather than a soci-ologist (Lasch, 1980, p. 7). This observation does hold true for Mumfords work in the 1920s but it would be wrongto talk of a careerchoice as such, especially given Mumfords output immediately following Geddess death. Indeed,Lasch admits that Mumford remained true to the sociologicalmode of thought, eschewing [a] humanistic retreatthroughout his work by concerning himself with the problems of modernity (Lasch, 1980, p. 28). In Laschs own
words, Mumford went on to deal with the concrete historical problems associated with the rise of capitalism, thespread of the scientific worldview, the growth of industrial methods, the industrial revolution, and the eventual emer-gence of a bureaucratic, managerial type of capitalism that organizes even leisure and consumption along industrial
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
13/19
DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE MACHINE 71
urban decay. However, his hope was for Neotechnic methods to ultimately temper the rise of
the machine and reassert the primacy of the organic.
Mumfords early work on technology and the city is, then, clearly Geddesian in terms of
both scope and content. If one is to accept that Geddes was a sociologist in the classical tradi-
tion then one must also accept that Mumford, in his pre-World War II work, was employing thesame theoretical assumptions as his master. However, what we will now show is that
Mumfords later and less explicitly Geddesian work also relied upon the principles of classical
sociological theory.
4. THE MYTH OF THE MACHINE AS A SOCIOLOGICAL PHENOMENON
Paralyzed like a monkey in the coil of a python, Mumford wrote in the Pentagon of
Power, the immediate post-Hiroshima generation, unable to utter a rational sound, shut its
eyes and waited for the end (Mumford, 1970, p. 267). It is perhaps in terms of statements
such as thesefull of Cold War paranoia, railing against the authoritarian statethat the laterMumford is best known as a prophet of doom. However, in this final section, we will
demythologize Mumford and show that conventional theoretical assumptions underpin his
post-World War II work, specifically the two volumes that comprise The Myth of the Machine
collection: Technics and Human Development(1967) andThe Pentagon of Power(1970). The
received reading of these books is that Mumford undertook a project that can be broadly
termed a philosophy of technology, but with obvious historical and anthropological dimen-
sions. While this interpretation is not inaccurate, it does not tell the full story, as Mumford
adopted a number of assumptions, including an ontology of the social, that we have already
identified with classical sociological theory.
The relevance of classical sociology to Mumfords work has previously been considered
by Eugene Rochberg-Halton (1990), who came to conclusions rather different to those we are
arguing for here. Quite correctly, Rochberg-Halton claims that Mumford can be seen as work-
ing within the tradition of social theory. However, Rochberg-Halton goes on to suggest that
major schisms exist between Mumford and the likes of Durkheim, with Mumfords critique of
modernity setting him apart from the classical canon (Rochberg-Halton, 1990, pp. 127129).
Rochberg-Halton argues that we should instead see Mumford as providing an organic,
biocosmic alternative to classical theory (Rochberg-Halton, 1990, p. 150). This reading of
Mumford and the classical tradition in general is rather odd. For the most part, classical
sociological theory provides an analysis of modernity that is largely ambivalent: Its arrival
is unavoidable, and it creates new possibilities, but it also has certain costs. Such a view is
evident throughout Mumfords writings where Paleotechnics is a necessary condition for the
arrival of Neotechnics. Even in theMyth of the Machine, Mumford is not opposed to moder-
nityper se, but to particular modes of thought and organization found in specific societies.
Yet to concentrate on such matters is to miss the broader picture, as one must look to the
theoretical assumptions that underpin Mumfords work rather than to the individual claims he
makes.5
5. For instance, Rochberg-Halton argues that the main difference between Weber and Mumford is that the former citesthe importance of Protestantism, while the latter cites the importance of Catholicism, particularly the monastery, in the
birth of capitalism (Rochberg-Halton, 1990). If one looks to broader themes in the work of both writers, one sees thatboth Weber and Mumford understand the power of ideas in shaping social organization. Religious belief is key in reg-ulating and ordering human behavior, be it in the monastery or Protestant enterprise. As Weber notes, the asceticism of
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
14/19
On reading The Myth of the Machine, one is struck immediately by its theoretical
vocabulary. Mumford jettisoned the Geddesian stages of technics and instead chose to base
his analysis around two dimensions of the technological world: what he called the
Megamachine and the Myth of the Machine. These features comprise what Mumford terms
Megatechnics, which is characterized by highly organized authoritarian societies in whichpolitical and technical projects are indistinguishable. In Technics and Human Developmenthe
focused on the ancient world, while in The Pentagon of Powerhe looked to Cold War society,
particularly that of the United States. In so doing, Mumford makes two key claims: first, that
the highly ordered authoritarian society is not unique to the modern world; second, that the
history of the modern authoritarian society can be traced through the European philosophical
tradition from the twelfth century onwards. To support these claims, Mumford focuses
throughout both volumes on the material and immaterial elements of Megatechnics. The
material aspects of Megatechnics are manifested in the Megamachine: an elaborately orga-
nized system of animate and inanimate parts. The immaterial elements are found in the Myth
of the Machine: the ideological underpinnings that inspire the creation and legitimate the con-tinued existence of the Megamachine. Megamachine is a term employed literally by
Mumford, and he implores the reader not to be limited by any preconceptions of machines as
inanimate artifacts and to think of it as the big machine (Mumford, 1967, p. 191; 1970, p. 240).
As his analysis subsequently makes clear, the Megamachine is a vast social machine
comprised of human and non-human parts, capable of undertaking large-scale socio-technical
projects, first instantiated in the pyramid building projects of Ancient Egypt and most recently
in the nuclear superpower.
What is obviously noticeable about Mumfords study is his desire to deal with social
totalities and to consider the big questions concerning power and order, which we earlier
discussed with regards to classical sociological theory. In an analysis that one could argue is
Weberian in its scope, Mumford expresses his concern with power and order through an
examination of hierarchical organization and the legitimate nature of domination. The
Megamachine, he argued, is a means of regimenting and directing an entire society toward
given collective ends. Thus, from the perspective of social theory, it is clear that Mumford was
not merely engaging in theoretical abstraction but attempting to explain a distinct sociological
phenomenon with particular social relations.
Of course, it is not difficult for Mumford to be a realist about the Megamachine when
he can point to particular physical instantiations of the phenomenon such as the pyramids of
Egypt, space rockets, or the Pentagon itself (Mumford, 1970, pp. 300311). However, its
material components are both human and inanimate, and one can only understand the
artifacts produced by the Megamachine in terms of the human organization at its core. Indeed,
Mumford stresses that the Megamachine of Ancient Egypt was invisible insofar as the
power relations within the machine can now only be reconstructed from the visible physical ev-
idence (Mumford, 1967, pp. 188189). The ideas held by those human parts are always
invisible, yet one can only appreciate how the Megamachine operates by considering its
ideological underpinnings.
In turning to the Myth of the Machinethe immaterial elements upon which the
Megamachine is reliantwe again see Mumfords theoretical and ontological commitments
to be those common to classical sociological theory. In Ancient Egypt, the Myth of the
Machine operated in a rudimentary form as a shared belief in the divinity of the Pharaoh that
ensured his commands would be obeyed. Religious faith was essential in facilitating the
operation of the Megamachine because, as Mumford explains, coercion alone is not sufficient
72 CHRIS RENWICK AND RICHARD C. GUNN
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
15/19
social function is perhaps not a particularly controversial claim when applied to pyramid
building. However, when applied to the twentieth century it appears to be far more radical as
the modern Megamachine must also rely upon belief. Mumford argues that the modern Myth
of the Machine exists as a faith in technological and scientific progress. There is no need to
coerce people, nor are traditional religious forms of belief necessary, because the Myth ofthe Machine [has] taken hold of the modern mind (Mumford, 1970, p. 237). Moreover, it has
done so because it operates at the collective level. When an ideology conveys such univer-
sal meanings and commands such obedience, he argued, it has become, in fact, a religion,
and its imperatives have the dynamic form of a myth (Mumford, 1970, p. 157). The Myth of
the Machine, in Mumfords analysis, is no abstraction or metaphor, nor is it a tendency or
a trend. It is a belief that has a particular social reality and, for Mumford, it is no less real than
the Megamachine.
Having abandoned his commitment to Geddess phases of technics, Mumford was also
able to trace the historical origins of highly organized machine production to a period long
before the industrial age. Nevertheless, Mumford still drew on Geddesian principles such asthe associated system of ideals: the claim that a particular age will be expressed in particular
ways of thinking, which will be manifested, in turn, in various facets of the human world. This
ontological commitment to the reality of ideas as things was something Mumford recognized
as being a distinct and important part of the Geddesian intellectual tradition he saw himself as
working in. Indeed, recent reinterpretations of Mumfords work seem even less plausible
when we examine his autobiography and find his account of how Geddess philosophic
structure had taken form before the publication of Freuds Interpretation of Dreams: for
Geddes dreams, myths and esthetic symbols were as real as atoms or Roentgen rays
(Mumford, 1982, p. 147).
At the most general level, then, we must think of Mumfords analysis of Megatechnical
society as upholding the Geddesian distinction between the immaterial and the material. It is
a mistake to consider the Megamachine, as some scholars have, as somehow primary and the
Myth of the Machine as secondary. The process of mechanization was furthered, Mumford
wrote, by an ideology that gave absolute precedence and cosmic authority to the machine
itself (Mumford, 1970, p. 157). It is in this sense that Mumfords philosophy of technology
may confound those who expect a more conventional ontology. However, as we demonstrated
earlier, such an ontology is conventional within the classical sociological approach. We can,
therefore, see Mumfords reliance upon the same assumptions as Durkheim. In other words,
the Geddesian ontology used by Mumford can be clearly understood in Durkheimian terms.
The focus on Durkheim also allows us to appreciate Mumfords work in terms of the role
played by collective belief in maintaining social order. In Mumfords account of ancient
Megatechnics, religion upheld the legitimacy of the Egyptian Megamachine by producing
shared belief that maintained social stability. The Myth of the Machine performs the same
social function in the modern instantiation of Megatechnicsonly traditional religious belief
is replaced by faith in the Megamachine itself. This analysis has clear and obvious similarities
to Durkheims argument in The Division of Labour, in which secular ideology based around
the cult of the individualcomes to replace the traditional religious order (Durkheim, 1984,
p. 85). For Durkheim, social solidarity is maintained through shared belief that upholds the
legitimacy of the given social order, a phenomenon he termed the conscience collective
(Durkheim, 1984, pp. 4243, 8485). Thus, both Mumford and Durkheim chart how traditional
religious beliefs are replaced by a secular ideology that comes to serve a similar function. For
both writers, collective belief is necessary to maintain social order in traditional and modern
DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE MACHINE 73
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
16/19
It is only by examining ontological commitments such as these that one can truly understand
Mumford as working in the classical sociological tradition. It is clear that the Myth of the
Machine is not simply the sum of individual beliefs, but has a distinct reality. Thus, in
Durkheimian terms, we can recognize the Myth of the Machine as a social factin that it has
recognizable effects and explanatory value, and is external to the individual. Not only doesMumford explain, through the Myth of the Machine, why human beings come to submit to
conditions of existence that are seemingly harmful, but he also explains the legitimacy of
Megatechnic organization by way of the collective hold that the Myth of the Machine has.
With the Myth of the Machine acting as a technological consciousness that operates over and
above the level of the individual, it is clear that Mumford makes similar ontological commit-
ments to the reality of social phenomena as both Geddes and Durkheim.
5. CONCLUSION
One objection a critic could attempt to level at the argument we have offered in this paperis that we have imposed an arbitrary framework on Patrick Geddes and Lewis Mumford.
However, in grounding our analysis in the writings and letters of each man, we have faithfully
recaptured the context in which their work was produced. We have shown that the conse-
quences of this underused approach to studying Geddes and Mumford are new and valuable
insights into the thought of both men as well as the nature of the relationship between them.
It is in this sense that our reading of Geddes and Mumford is one rooted in the primary factors
and concerns that shaped their writings rather than in the secondary issues that have
dominated scholarship up until now.
By focusing on Mumford solely as a philosopher of technology or theorist of the city,
scholarship has tended to avoid asking whether there are issues that persist throughout his
oeuvre. What we have shown is that he constantly aimed to explain how social order is main-
tained in his work on technology and the city from the 1930s onwards. In exploring this issue,
Mumford regularly made a distinction between the material and the immaterial but, crucially,
also insisted on their ontological equivalence. We have argued that, in this respect, he can be
understood as employing the assumptions of classical sociology. Moreover, we have demon-
strated that the reason for Mumfords use of these sociological tools was his intentional ap-
propriation of the ideas of his single greatest intellectual inspiration: Patrick Geddes. Indeed,
we have also shown how the common perception of the declining importance over time of
Geddes to Mumfords writings is thoroughly misguided. Although the theoretical vocabulary
Mumford deployed in his later work may have fundamentally altered, the Geddesian theoret-
ical principles upon which he relied did not.
In order to produce a more rounded picture of Mumford the thinker, it may be in some
sense fruitful, as recent scholarship has suggested, to consider the role of writers other than
Geddes in shaping his work. However, looking to Freud or Jung reveals little about the fun-
damental assumptions that underlie Mumfords later publications on technology. Quite simply,
reference to the Megamachine and the Myth of the Machine without recognizing Mumfords
specific ontology of the material and immaterial is an oversight that has impaired our under-
standing of his writings. The question that one can ask is why this feature of Mumfords work
has been overlooked. Although we can only speculate on possible answers here, we suggest an
unfamiliarity with the basics of sociological theory and with Geddess thought on the part of
those who have thus far attempted to unravel Mumfords writings on technics.
However, one reason why Mumfords grounding in classical sociology has been ignored
74 CHRIS RENWICK AND RICHARD C. GUNN
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
17/19
do, it is almost never as a theorizer on a par with those who founded their discipline. While it
is not our intention to suggest that Geddes was someone who should be considered an equal
of Durkheim, Weber, or Tnnies in terms of shaping sociology, we do believe that he and
his work are worthy of a long overdue reappraisal. As we showed in section two, Geddes was
deeply concerned with the kinds of questions about the nature of sociology that the luminariesof the classical canon are celebrated for having asked. An examination of Geddess rarely
studied writings shows that he possessed a theoretical framework that was explicitly thought-
out in terms of sociology as an independent and autonomous science. Indeed, in many of his
conclusions about the nature and maintenance of social order, he was in total agreement with
Durkheim, Weber, and classical sociology in general.
The importance of this dimension of Geddess thought is one that must be appreciated
not just in terms of its implications for our understanding of Mumford but also for the history
of sociology in general. Because sociologists have almost exclusively been responsible for
writing the history of their field, the standard view of how sociology developed has been often
deeply misleading. While one consequence of this received history is an embracing ofthinkers and writers, including Karl Marx, who would not have described themselves as
sociologists, another is an exclusion of others, such as Geddes, who not only understood
themselves as sociologists but also engaged with the very same problems as their more cele-
brated contemporaries. Although there is still much to be done in terms of bringing better his-
torical sensibilities to bear on the history of sociology, our close study of Geddes and
Mumford has shown that to do so will yield important results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We must firstly recognize the financial assistance of the Arts and Humanities Research
Council and the School of Philosophy, University of Leeds, United Kingdom. We are mostgrateful to Christopher Kenny, Jonathan Hodge, Steven Lovatt, and two anonymous reviewers
for reading earlier drafts of this article and making many valuable suggestions for improve-
ment. Our thanks must also go to everyone who attended the Leeds History and Philosophy
of Science Informal Seminar and the 2006 HAPSAT conference at the University of Toronto,
where earlier versions of this research were presented. Finally, we wish to thank Andrew
Campbell for his help in locating sources.
REFERENCES
Abrams, P. (1968). The origins of British sociology: 18341914. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Anderson, P. (1968). Components of national culture. The New Left Review, 50, 357.Boardman, P. (1978). The worlds of Patrick Geddes: Biologist, town planner, re-educator, peace-warrior. London:
Routledge and Keegan-Paul.Branford, V. (1926). The background of survival and tendency as exposed in an exhibition of modern ideas.
Sociological Review, 18, 207230.Carey, J., & Quirk, J. J. (1979). The mythos of the electronic revolution. American Scholar, 39, 219241, 395424.Casillo, R. (1992). Lewis Mumford and the organicist concept in social thought. Journal of the History of Ideas, 53,
91116.Collini, S. (1978). Sociology and idealism in Britain 18801920. Archives Europennes de Sociologie 19, 350.Congreve, R. (1883). Letter to J. K. Ingram, 30 December. Positivist Papers, MS 45233 f. 33, British Library,
London, UK.Den Otter, S. M. (1996). British idealism and social explanation: A study in late Victorian thought. Oxford, UK:
Clarendon Press.
Durkheim, E. (1952). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). London: Routledge &Keegan-Paul. (Original work published 1897.)
Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method (W. D. Halls, Trans.). New York: The Free Press. (Original
DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE MACHINE 75
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
18/19
Durkheim, E. (1984). The division of labour in society (W. D. Halls, Trans.). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. (Originalwork published 1893.)
Geddes, P. (18821884). An analysis of the principles of economics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh,12, 943980.
Geddes, P. (1904). Civics: As applied sociology. Sociological Papers, 1, 101118.Geddes, P. (1905). Civics: As concrete and applied sociology (Part 2). Sociological Papers, 2, 57111.
Geddes, P (1915). Cities in evolution: An introduction to the town planning movement and to the study of civics.London: Williams and Norgate.
Geddes, P. (1926). Introduction. In S. Liveing, A nineteenth-century teacher: John Henry Bridges (pp. 119).London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Geddes, P., & Thomson, J. Arthur. (1931). Life: Outlines of general biology, 2 Vols. London: Williams and Norgate.Goldman, L. (2007). Foundations of British sociology 18801930: Contexts and biographies. Sociological Review
55, 431440.Green, A. (2006). Matter and psyche: Lewis Mumfords appropriation of Marx and Jung in his appraisal of the
condition of man in technological civilization. History of the Human Sciences, 19, 3364.Halliday, R. J. (1968). The sociological movement, the Sociological Society and the genesis of academic sociology
in Britain. Sociological Review, 16, 377398.Hawthorn, G. (1976). Enlightenment and despair. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kitchen, P. (1975). A most unsettling person: An introduction to the ideas and life of Patrick Geddes. London: Victor
Gollancz.Lasch, C. (1980). Mumford and the myth of the machine. Salmagundi, 49, 428.Law, A. (2005). The ghost of Patrick Geddes: Civics as applied sociology. Sociological Research Online, 10.
Mairet, P. (1957). Pioneer of sociology: The life and letters of Patrick Geddes. London: Lund Humphries.Marx, L. (1990). Lewis Mumford: Prophet of organicism. In A. C. Hughes & T. P. Hughes (Eds.), Lewis Mumford:
Public intellectual (pp. 164180). New York: Oxford University Press.Meller, H. (1990). Patrick Geddes: Social evolutionist and city planner. London: Routledge.Meller, H. (2000). Understanding the European city around 1900: The contribution of Patrick Geddes. In V. Welter &
J. Lawson (Eds.), The city after Patrick Geddes (pp. 3555). Berlin: Peter Lang.Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and civilization. London: George Routledge & Sons.Mumford, L. (1940). The culture of cities (offset ed.). London: Secker & Warburg.Mumford, L. (1955). The human prospect. Boston: The Beacon Press.Mumford, L. (1967). The myth of the machine: Technics and human development. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.Mumford, L. (1970). The myth of the machine: The pentagon of power. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Mumford, L. (1982). Sketches from life. The autobiography of Lewis Mumford: The early years. New York: Dial
Press.Novack, F. (Ed.) (1995). Lewis Mumford and Patrick Geddes: The correspondence. London: Routledge.Rochberg-Halton, E. (1990). The transformation of social theory. In A. C. Hughes & T. P. Hughes (Eds.), Lewis
Mumford: Public intellectual (pp. 127151). New York: Oxford University Press.Schnapper, D. (2005). A View from a French sociologist. In A. H. Halsey & W. G. Runciman (Eds.), British sociology
seen from without and within (pp. 107108). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.Scott, J., & Husbands, C. T. (2007). Victor Branford and the building of British sociology. Sociological Review, 55,
460484.Shils, E. (1985). On the eve: A prospect in retrospect. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Essays on the history of British
sociological research (pp. 165178). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Studholme, M. (2007). Patrick Geddes: Founder of environmental sociology. Sociological Review, 55, 441459.Swer, G. M (2003). The road to Necropolis: Technics and death in the philosophy of Lewis Mumford. History of the
Human Sciences, 16, 3959.Swer, G. M. (2004). Technics and (para)praxis: The Freudian dimensions of Lewis Mumfords theories of technol-
ogy. History of the Human Sciences, 17, 4568.Tnnies, F. (1955). Community and association (C.P. Loomis, Trans.). London: Routledge & Keegan Paul. (Original
work published 1887.)Weber, M. (1927). General economic history (F. H. Knight, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (Original work
published 1923.)Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretative sociology, 3 Vols. (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.;
E. Fischoff, H. Gerth, A.M. Henderson, F. Kolegar, C. Wright Mills, T. Parsons, M. Rheinstein, G. Roth, E.Shils, C. Wittich, Trans.). New York: Bedminster Press. (Original work [German 4th edition] published 1956.)
Welter, V. (2002). Biopolis: Patrick Geddes and the city of life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Zueblin, C. (1899). The worlds f irst sociological laboratory. American Journal of Sociology, 4, 577592.
76 CHRIS RENWICK AND RICHARD C. GUNN
7/30/2019 Renwick, Gunn - 2008 - Demytholigizing the Machine Patrick Geddes, Lewis Mumford
19/19