"Technology for Man" Revisited

Communications “TECHNOLOGY FOR MAN” REVISITED W. E. HOWLAND In commenting on my paper, “Education for Social Leadership,” John G. Burke, a professor of history, mentions a number of engineers and engineering teachers from the early part of this century who ex­ pressed many, if not all, of the more significant views set forth in my paper. This authoritative support encourages me, but my enthusiasm for these views is, I admit, somewhat dampened when I read that a teacher of history states he “believe(s) it is wishful thinking to expect arts and humanities professors to generate and stimulate interest” in their courses among engineering students; and again, “motivation and deep intellectual curiosity; it is doubtful that the vast majority of engineering students possess either.” Any program for broadening the education of the engineering student which depends on teachers who hold these views is, I am afraid, doomed to failure. Further, I fear that the ideas expressed by Burke may be widely held by the members of the depart­ ments that now teach the courses in liberal arts; other doubts about the suitability of present courses in the “arts” for engineering students were expressed by S. C. Florman in his comments on my piece. If it is true, as charged, that it was the “chemical engineers” who “disregarded the ecological effects of the processes they employed and used the rivers as sewers” and not the financial managers of the cor­ poration who gave the orders to pollute, then, surely, the engineers need to be better informed about ecological effects. In either case they need a keener sensitiveness to their social responsibilities—which means, according to my view, a broader education. My main argument is that the important problems facing society today require an extension of the engineer’s method to areas inclusive Dr. Howland, professor emeritus of civil engineering at Purdue University, wrote the article “Engineering Education for Social Leadership,” which provided the argument in the symposium “Technology for Man,” Technology and Culture 10 (January 1969): 1-19. The comments on Professor Howland’s thesis were: John G. Burke, “Let’s Be Sure Technology Is for Man”; Samuel C. Florman, “Engineers and the End of Innocence”; and James C. Wallace, “The Engineering Use of Human Beings.” 237 238 W. E. Howland of, but extending beyond, the field of technology; therefore, my argu­ ment is, in effect, a denial and not an affirmation, as charged, of the notion that all problems are capable of a strictly “technological fix.” The mention of international war and the maladministration of pur­ chasing power as problems to be faced by engineers calls to Burke’s mind the frightening specters of Thorstein Veblen and of the Techno­ crats. His argument (that the only alternative to traditional methods of the status quo for dealing with social problems would probably require the surrender of individual freedoms) has often been used to oppose needed reforms, and, nearly as often, has been refuted. My plea is for an extension of freedom: the freedom of the engineer to extend his method and to apply his intelligence to any problem that he finds him­ self called upon to attack, even if it be poverty or war. Further disenchantment with my expectation of the “good” that might come from a broadening and enrichment of the education of the engineer would result from acceptance of the view of Florman in his comment, “Engineers and the End of Innocence”; namely (zr), “that the study of liberal arts will [not] make them better—more concerned with the welfare of their fellow citizens . . .” and, mirabile dictu (b), “that engineers . . . are ... as good as they ought to be.” In other words the patient is perfectly healthy and, even if he weren’t, the remedy pro­ posed would be the wrong one. It is, indeed, discouraging to read the evidence of decadence of “arts in our time” and the failure of an educational program based upon modern philosophy, modern drama and literature, and modern graphic and plastic arts to accomplish the traditional Miltonian purposes of a “complete and generous education.” Then let us reform the liberal arts program and reintroduce the study of “Plutarch’s Lives,” if need be, to

Curiosity · Enthusiasm · Higher education · Liberal arts education · Mathematics education · Pedagogy · Political science · Set (abstract data type) · Sociology · The arts · Wishful thinking · American Environmental and Regional History · Computer Science · Education, Technology, and Ethics · Engineering Education and Curriculum Development · Flooding and Environmental Impact · History of Computing Technologies · Information Systems Theories and Implementation · Law · Psychology · Social Psychology