Critical Response #1: Jeffrey Forrester

While I agree with your view of Lucena’s article of the history of engineering and the differences it has created in modern engineering, you fail to mention the differences between the countries’ governments during the development of engineering. I believe that the differences in government, not the history Lucena describes is a better explanation for the differences in engineering.
Looking at the state of government of Britain, France, and the United States during engineering’s earliest stages we see that France and the United States have both had revolutions, while Britain had not been successfully invaded (last successful invasion was in 1066 by the Norman French) or had a revolution for hundreds of years. This is why Britain’s government, which due to their long lasting government are slow to pass bills, leave engineering to the people. So, the development of engineering in Britain is left to the engineers who themselves learned through experience, which gave them a bias towards experience. This bias still holds. On the other hand, France and the United States both had new governments while engineering was developing. These new governments passed laws and bills promoting engineering schools to be built. France’s early engineering universities were based off of the classical learning system (partly to be accepted by these universities) which emphasizes theory, and America’s universities were based off of France’s successful engineering schools. This early emphasis of theory in the classroom leads both of these countries to lean towards theory today. As America formally gained its independence from Britain in with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, it had time to be affected by Britain’s view of engineering. This may be why America values experience more than France.

Reading Response #1

The nature of engineering and the way engineers are trained is crucial to understanding our society and the lens it has been constructed under. Before the study of Science and Technology had emerged Science/Tech was generally portrayed as solely a positive thing for society and the negative social implications were not necessarily addressed. This was a huge issue because often times Science/Tech was created under a patriarchal model of linear progression and people began to see this as natural and inevitable.

For this reason exactly the ways in which scientists and engineers are working and being trained “are matters of vital concern in our society.”(2-Donovan). To start out we can examine British engineering and how it began focusing on ideals of craftsmanship, hard work and emphasized the importance of personality in the working world. British engineers utilized their freedom and normally began participating in the subject because they genuinely had a passion for it.

In my opinion this emphasis on creativity, individuality, and versatility in British engineering is a very positive thing to stress because it encourages engineers to think outside of the box because now day’s engineers must be thinking about much more than a product created under a linear model of progression. A socially and ethically responsible engineer must use creativity to address issues of global warming, racial injustices, unfair distribution of power, etc.

French engineering on the other hand seems to be less equipped at addressing current global issues because it was created under a patriarchal model that promoted classicism and nationalism. French engineering was “THE recognized way to the top, both socially and professionally” (1-Barsoux) which enticed many people, however, often times for the wrong reasons. In turn, many French engineers entered the field because of its associations with money and power.

In terms of addressing global issues the French model of engineering falls short because it was created under a hierarchal framework that inevitably was created to benefit some and hinder others. Unlike the British system, the French system inhibits creativity and individuality because it is too closely tied with politics and power. This of course makes it very difficult to address the multiplicity of global issues we currently face today.

In my opinion a great engineer would focus more on the classic British model of engineering and would combine creativity and technology in order to create a product that addresses a variety of needs based on a variety of global issues. The French engineering model may fall short in this sense because the desire to achieve social and professional status may impede their ability or want to create ethically fair/sustainable global engineering.

-Mariel Emanuel

The Ecosystem of Culture – Reading Response #1

Culture is an ever changing, ever growing and developing system, much like that of an ecosystem. Ecosystems are described by the balance that is maintained to support them; the ever changing relationships between species, the global “catastrophes” such as earthquakes or tsunamis, and the impact from a dominant species are all triggers of change. The delicate balance of an ecosystem can be easily upset, and sometimes with what is thought to be a small impact can cause some of the largest changes within the ecosystem. Culture can be described as an ecosystem: it continues to change and adapt to these impacts, both good and bad. Hess supports this ever changing ideology when he states “It is therefore unlikely that the world is becoming “more homogeneous”: there are both centripetal and centrifugal tendencies, merging cultures and emergent cultures.” Many ecosystems have been misunderstood and misinterpreted by us humans. We expect a strength and stability that is not always present – and are surprised when the ecosystem begins to fall apart. How is this any different than the human expectation of a stable cultural environment?

According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy (the chaos of a system) is always increasing – meaning that the overall trend of the world is toward chaos. Hess continues to support the idea of change and chaos when he states, “the phenomena of overlap and miscegenation will likely lead to such radical changes in the classification system that the very concepts of ethnic majority and minority are likely to undergo radical changes as well.” So many people expect and work towards cultural and social change, but the impacts they introduce to the cultures “break” the ecosystem of that culture causing a result not anticipated. It can be hard to understand how something as pesky as an aphid can have such an impact on an entire ecosystem. Consider a field-type ecosystem: if we removed the aphids from these fields, our goal being to remove them in order to allow the plant life to flourish (as the aphids continue to destroy the plant life – suppressing its growth), what would happen to the ladybugs who eat the aphids? Their source of food would be gone, their positive impact on the ecosystem removed. Next, the small birds and lizards would suffer, without a food source, they too would die out. As these smaller species continue to die, the plant life is taking over the landscape, this time however, the weeds have begun to flourish and are killing the beautiful flowers we had set out to save. Weeds are more durable and require less water and less transfer of seeds – they are tough. By now the entire ecosystem has changed, and for the worse. By trying to eliminate a small “problem” we undermined our own efforts. And in reality, were the aphids really such a problem? It is a matter of perspective, by looking at them and respecting the role they play in the existing ecosystem we can see their value.

The efforts to change social and cultural norms can be thought of in the same regard. Everything plays a role in the dynamics of culture, by making one small change, such as removing a well as a water source and providing running water in homes, as we discussed in class, the entire dynamic of the culture has changed – both for the better and the worse – and it cannot be changed back. Once a habit is learned, it is hard to loose that habit. Such as having the convenience of running water – imagine having to shower with a bucket. Buchanan touches on the idea of learned characteristics that build a culture. He discusses the culture of British Engineers, “Many of the engineers came from social and family backgrounds in which hard work was a prerequisite of survival, and the habit, once formed, lasted a professional lifetime.” These learned traits stayed with the young engineers their entire lives – and were the reason that the engineering culture in Britain is the way it is today – a unique ecosystem of its own.

Quotes from:

Hess “Culture and Society” + “Power and Politics”

Buchanan “The Life-Style of the Victorian Engineers”