Here’s what I found surprising.  First, almost everybody punted on the question “What distinction do you make between what is technology and what is environment?”—which was one of the questions each participant had been asked to think about up front.  On one hand, punting on this question made perfect sense as each participant only had a few minutes to speak.  However, in the discussion that followed (which involved everybody, not just the official participants), it was suggested that this question is an old one for historians working at the intersection of technology and the environment and, perhaps, not as interesting as it once was. The public, someone else suggested, might be more interested in this question than scholars.  And that, I suppose, is the critical point: how most people view the distinction between technology and nature matters–and so it is probably still worth examining how that distinction has changed over time and varies from context to context.

Second, I was surprised at the level of interest on bodies and senses.  In four of the projects (senses, brain, food, and drugs), the human body emerged as an important part of the story.  One could also make a place for bodies in Daniel’s architecture-centered project as well.  I was surprised because I would have expected efforts to inform policy questions related to environmental sustainability to be more prominent, as in Robert’s project on the engineering of ecosystems and Daniel’s study of quixotic hopes surrounding solar power homes.

Others, however, noted that there were important public issues embedded in all of these projects. Joy’s work is
linked to environmental justices issues in 6 Canadian sites; Nic’s work potentially informs numerous food policy issues; Shera’s work raises questions about the power of pharmaceutical companies and the future of clinical trials; and Ed’s….is hard to put into words…but certainly was worthy of the session title, “taking risks.” Still others mentioned how this interest in bodies reminded them of other issues, such as the difference between monitoring the health of the environment versus monitoring the health of individual bodies.

In retrospect, the emphasis on bodies also probably made questions about the distinction between technology and nature more complicated that usual.  Shera noted that, in her case, the body could be viewed as the environment of interest, which forces one to see terms such as the “built environment” or even “remote sensing” in a new light.  In Ed’s and  Joy’s work, and potentially Nic’s, bodies are embedded in a world of smells, sounds, and tastes, all of which are being heavily influenced by technological change. To what degree does it matter if a smell, taste, or sound is natural or cultural?  That is one of the questions, I imagine, that their work is addressing.

Hugh Gorman

The main topic of discussion was the proposal from SHOT to give all the SIGs a slot on Sunday morning at the conference in Pittsburgh this fall.   There was general agreement that the time should not be used for either a traditional panel or a workshop specifically related to teaching. The suggestion that received the most support was to have an open-ended discussion by all participants about their research and new projects. The purpose would be to encourage “risky ideas” on the part of people considering new perspectives and possibilities.

Therefore, we are seeking 4-5 people with new projects (article, book, syllabus, teaching technology, other) who want to present their emerging ideas and questions in a discussion amenable to the exploration of possibilities and risky ideas. If interested, please contact Ann Greene or Hugh Gorman.

The group also discussed David Nye’s suggestion that the Envirotech prize be given a name. However, the group decided to think about possible names and to discuss the topic again at SHOT in the fall.

Announcements:

1) Envirotech needs a new co-convener, as it is time for Ann Greene to step down. If interested, contact Ann and Hugh.

2) A reminder that there will be an Envirotech meeting at SHOT in Pittsburgh this October.

3) The First World Congress of Environmental History will be held in Copenhagen this August. Dolly Jorgensen is organizing an Envirotech meeting at the WCEH; contact her if you will be at the conference.

4) We will present the next Envirotech prize at ASEH 2010 in Portland, Oregon.  Dolly Jorgensen is chair of the committee.

5) The University of Virginia Press has approved the Envirotech book. It is slated for publication in the second half of 2011, possibly in time for fall course adoptions.

6. Frank Uekötter encouraged people interested in fellowships to visit the website for The Rachel Carson Center for Environmental Studies, which is a joint initiative of Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich and the Deutsches Museum.

7). A reminder to send all website postings and listserv questions to Finn Arne Jørgensen at news@envirotechweb.org.

– Ann Greene

The first agenda item was the announcement of the Envirotech Article Prize recipient, Paul Sutter (see the  complete write-up on his article here). Because the prize is handed out every 18 months, the next prize will be awarded at ASEH in Portland in 2010. We are in need of a volunteer to join the prize committee, so if you are interested in being on this worthwhile committee, please contact Hugh Gorman at hsgorman@mtu.edu.

Finn Arne also spoke about the website http://envirotechweb.org which is Envirotech’s forum for sharing information. There is a section where Syllabi from relevant classes can be posted. If you have a syllabus (undergraduate or graduate course) that in some way touches on both environmental history and history of technology, please email the syllabus to Finn Arne at news@envirotechweb.org so that it can be posted for all to share. Finn Arne is also moving the email listserv over to envirotech.web so that it can be more easily maintained in the future.

Several attendees contributed new book / series announcements. Ralf Brand, who was unable to attend, asked that we announce the recent publication a special issue of the journal Built Environment (vol 34, no 2, 2008) focused on sustainable mobility. Jacob Hamblin mentioned a recent special issue of Diplomatic History (vol 32, no 4, 2008) that focused on environmental politics.

As a group, we also congratulated Joel Tarr on his Leonardo da Vinci award.

There was a brief discussion about Envirotech’s funds. We had a little over $1,600 in our account after the article prize money was given out. In addition, we received contributions of $138 at the lunch. We currently subsidize the meal graduate students who attend the envirotech meeting at both SHOT and ASEH and give out the article prize every 18 months. Tom Zeller suggested that we pursue an idea brought forward at a prior meeting about a graduate student conference travel grant – perhaps something small like $200 at each SHOT and ASEH for a student presenting an envirotech-relevant paper. If you would like to serve as a member of a committee to discuss such a proposal, please email Hugh Gorman at hsgorman@mtu.edu.

The meeting was chaired by Dolly Jørgensen. We had reports on the current status of the book project (Ed Russell), the 2007 article prize (Frank Uekötter), SHOT sessions and new website (Finn Arne Jørgensen). Richard Wilk (Anthropology Department, Indiana University) announced that he is looking for manuscripts for publication as the editor of a book series “Globalization and the Environment” with Altamira Press (see http://www.altamirapress.com/series/).

The ESEH 2007 conference had the theme “Environmental Connections.” Jane Carruthers, University of South Africa, opened the conference with a paper titled “Environmental history: Revitalising connection, context and coherence in historical studies.” She argued that connections lie at the core of environmental history, giving it both its direction and its strength. Using the example of Dutch colonization of South Africa, she explored some of the ways environmental expectations led to challenges for both the Europeans and Africans in the early modern period. Carruthers emphasized that environmental history has the opportunity to tell histories across national and cultural boundaries. As a discipline, it has the opportunity to connect new sources – oral, visual, spatial, scientific – and connect new ideas and concepts – similarities, patterns, interactions, continuities, evolution, and differences.

A number of papers at the conference picked up on the theme by focusing on scientific, environmental and knowledge exchanges during colonization efforts, such as the transfer of irrigation technology, importation of botanical specimens and development of national park ideas. Other papers focused on later exchanges, such as the influence of European livestock science on Brazilian cattle ranching in the 19th and 20th centuries and connections between German and American wastewater treatment design.

The “connections” theme is particularly fitting for envirotech researchers as we work to show the connections between technology and the environment. Much of what Carruthers said about environmental history applies to the history of technology as well. The intersection of history of environment and technology has the opportunity to tell histories that cut across traditional boundaries of nation states, periodization, and historical disciplines.

ESEH normally meets every other year and we plan to continue meeting as a group there. But in lieu of a separate meeting in 2009, ESEH will meet collectively with a number of other environmental history organizations at the World Environmental History Congress August 4-9, 2009 in Copenhagen. Envirotech plans to meet at the 2009 Congress.

By Dolly Jørgensen

Originally published in the Envirotech Newsletter 2007/1

How appropriate, then, that the city was the setting for a scholarly session dedicated to the theme, “Rethinking the Nature-Technology Dichotomy: The Uses of Life in Late Modernity.” Held as part of the Society for the History of Technology’s annual meeting, October 12-15th, this Saturday morning session was a conference highlight for those envirotechies fortunate enough to attend.

Thomas Wieland from the Munich Center for the History of Science and Technology organized the session and also presented his fascinating paper, “Biological Rationality: Changing Attitudes Towards the Uses of Life in Late Modernity.” Late modernity, Wieland argued, has been characterized by a belief in a sharp dichotomy between the natural and technological. As a result, late modern thinkers emphasized technological rationality as the most powerful and accurate way of understanding and manipulating the environment. In this paradigm engineers, scientists, and other experts strove to replace organisms with technology wherever possible. Thus living organisms were translated, both metaphorically and physiologically, into quasi machines, and the rationality of the technical dominated.

In the late 1950s, however, the concept of “bionics” offered a new way of thinking about both technology and biology. As conceived by innovators such as Jack Steele, bionics attempted to use principles derived from living systems in designing technology. Wieland offered a contemporary example of this with a 2005 advertisement for a Mercedes-Benz bionic car. Pairing a picture of the company’s lightweight and highly streamlined automobile with a fish, the ad clearly suggested that “nature is the best engineer.” Another example of this “biological rationality,” Wieland suggested, can be found in integrated pest management strategies that combine chemical and biological controls.

Beginning in the mid-century, then, advanced technological nations began to embrace what Wieland termed “multiple rationalities” for understanding nature and technology. Challenging the earlier domination of the technical way of thinking and seeing the world, biological rationality suggested that nature was not just a passive source of raw materials but rather an invaluable source of ideas for solving modern design problems. Older ideas that nature was best understood in technological terms gave way to the view that technological systems can also be productively understood in biological terms. Biological rationality thus challenged the nature-technology dichotomy by elevating the importance of natural systems and by blurring the boundaries between the natural and technological.

This blurring of the machines and organisms was also explored by Edmund Russell (University of Virginia) in his stimulating paper, “The Incredible Evolving Dog: Making an Animal Modern.” Russell started his talk with the picture of a somewhat unfamiliar looking little dog, asking the audience members if anyone could identify the dog’s breed and job. With this intriguing introduction, Russell suggested that dogs had been modernized in Great Britain in the 19th century, undergoing a process in which humans remade rather than replaced the natural world. Acting through a process of artificial selection, humans became agents of what Russell has termed “evolutionary history”—that is, the history of the human role in guiding (intentionally or unintentionally) the evolution of other organisms and the consequences of this evolution for human societies.

It is through evolutionary history, Russell continued, that we must understand the mysterious small dog he had begun with. This dog, he now revealed, was an extinct breed known as a “Turnspit.” During the early modern period, these little dogs were bred for the purpose of powering wheels rather like those found made today for pet mice and gerbils. In the Turnspit’s case, however, the running wheel was connected to a meat spit before a fire, thus constantly turning the meat so that it would cook evenly.

Why did the Turnspit breed ultimately go extinct? In an apt illustration of the process of evolutionary history, Russell argued that the Turnspit’s niche was eliminated by the development of mechanical clock technology. Spit turning mechanisms were thereafter powered by clock springs or falling weights.

Such hybrid human-nature niches were created, altered, and in some cases eliminated through a variety of forces, Russell argued, including such well-known historical phenomena as the creation of nation states and evolution of the ideology of romanticism. The example of the English bull dog, he argued, demonstrates the role nation states can play in evolutionary history. Initially bred for the purpose of bull baiting, bulls dogs were compact and agile animals with strong jaws—the traits needed to avoid being gored so the dog could get a fierce biting hold on the bull’s face. By the early 19th century, however, the British state had outlawed the practice of bull baiting, in part for moral and religious reasons, but also because the pastime did not fit well with regimentation of the emerging factory system. Unlike the Turnspit, however, the bull dog was saved from extinction by the opening of a new ecological niche when the dog became valued as a pet. Subsequent breeding efforts thus directed the bull dog’s evolution away from its more functional form to emphasize aesthetic traits pet owners found attractive, like a short snout, large head, and narrow hips. Indeed, the anthropogenic evolution of the modern bull dog is so pronounced that the breed’s narrow hips require that pups be delivered by caesarean section.

At the same time, Russell noted that the nation state’s role in eliminating the bull dog niche opened a different niche for another sporting dog, the Greyhound. Unlike bull baiting, which was often a drawn out and complex activity that could consume an entire afternoon, Greyhound racing was a cheap and quick entertainment for a working class that no longer had the unstructured leisure time of the pre-industrial era. A Greyhound race could be executed in only a few minutes as the animals raced over relatively short straight courses. Accordingly, humans selected the dogs (initially Whippets) best capable of short high-speed sprinting, thus producing the Greyhound’s long lean streamlined form with its echoes of the “naturally” speedy Jaguar.

Finally, Russell discussed the importance of modern ideological forces in driving evolutionary history. With the rise of romanticism in the 18th and 19th centuries, middle class Britons developed a new appreciation for what they considered to be beautiful pastoral landscapes. This middle class definition of natural beauty, however, was defined in large part by the absence of any actual work from the landscape. Accordingly, many middle class visitors to the countryside admired the image of sheep gently grazing in green pastures, but they found the sheep dogs who herded them to be distinctly ugly. Breeders thus catered to the middle class fascination with rural nature by breeding the typical sheep dog—an early form of the Border Collie—with Greyhounds. The outcome was the lean and elegant Collie, an indisputably attractive animal but one which Russell pointed out is totally useless for herding sheep or anything else.

A third paper was presented by Geraldine Abir-Am of Brandeis University, “The Transatlantic Origins of Biogen: A Case Study in the Transition from Molecular Biology in Late Modernity.” Abir-Am traced the historical development of Biogen Corporation, which began in 1978 with the cooperation of seven European scientists and two Americans. The Biogen story offers a fascinating case study of the transition from molecular biology to biotech. Resonating with Wieland’s work, Abir-Am suggested that the “biological rationality” embraced by the founders of Biogen simply side-stepped the traditional boundaries between science and technology. From the very start, this influential biotech firm saw little distinction between the study of nature (science) and the development of useful technological processes, such as interferon and bioengineered enzymes. Biotechnology thus offers yet another compelling example of how the nature-technology dichotomy blurred and collapsed in the process of creating the modern world.

In a useful comment, Gabriella Petrick (New York University) applauded all of the papers for their interesting insights, but she also raised several larger questions applicable to all of the papers. Petrick argued that all the authors might wish to give more attention to the slippery concept of modernity, which far from being a static idea has evolved over time. Further, by using the term without first clearly defining it, scholars run the risk of robbing the concept of any true analytical power. Petrick also questioned one of the basic intellectual foundations of the session, which was the existence of a “Nature-Technology Dichotomy” that the three authors now proposed to problematize. But did this dichotomy ever really exist, Petrick wondered, given that historians have known for some time that science and engineering overlapped and intertwined almost indistinguishably from the beginning. Likewise, in a comment from the floor, Sara Pritchard (Montana State University) encouraged the authors to think about the social construction of the naturetechnology dichotomy, and particularly how the evolving concept might have proved useful for economic, social, or political purposes in the past.

By Tim LeCain

Originally published in the Envirotech Newsletter 2006/2