- Lot of stuff going on here. Economic history, financial institutions, technical change. Lot of ground to cover in 85 tweets. Read it on your phone to minimize the migraine-inducing background patterns
PLATT. I should like to mention one aspect of this— the overlapping governmental units involved in big complexes of this sort. Richard Meir has made a study of this. He finds that there are some 465 semi-independent government organizations in the San Francisco Bay area for a population of about four million people. Roughly one governmental unit per 10,000; although, of course, some of them actually cover the whole area. This includes school districts, garbage units, councils of various sorts, economic units. The problem is to get these semi-independent government bodies interrelated so that initiating any new project does not require an almost infinite number of signatures, or so that one of these bodies isn’t doing something that another one is negating. This is a fantastic problem already at the four-million level; to extend this to the 100-million level is going to require new levels of organization and management.
WADDINGTON. At this ratio of governing bodies to people a megalopolis of 100-million would be run by something like 10,000 different agencies. The possibility of an administrative jam-up occurring, so that some essential service just doesn’t operate, would be enormous.
PLATT: The complexity probably goes up as the square of the number of units of organization or management.
WADDINGTON: Is anybody seriously studying this as a problem in organizing a management structure? How far do our universities deal with this? Presumably the legal profession, the management profession, and people of this kind have got to work out how it is to be done. This is going to happen within one generation. There is not much time.
From “Biology and the History of the Future” (an IUBS/UNESCO symposium, 1972)
It is illuminating to explore an interview Foucault had with a group of French historians in 1977. In the third section of the interview, “The Problem of Rationalities,” Foucault is asked about Weber…In response to a question about whether he shared Weber’s interpretation of the “meta-anthropological process of rationalization” as increasingly dominant, Foucault replied “If one calls ‘Weberians’ those who set out to take on board the Marxist analyses of the contradictions of capital, treating those contradiction as part and parcel of the irrational rationality of capitalist society, then I don’t think I am a Weberian, since my basic pre-occupation isn’t rationality considered as an anthropological variant.” Of course, this “preoccupation” was not Weber’s either. Foucault went on to say that he preferred a view of rationality as a practice understood in an “instrumental and relative” manner. Further, he wanted to analyze how such a practice inflected forms of governmentality. One would have no problem translating this version of Foucault’s analytic project into a Weberian framework.
–Paul Rabinow, Anthropos Today. (2003) pp. 37-38
The nomograph: a diagram allowing for the visual calculation of the values of multiple interrelated physiological variables. (Committee on Industrial Physiology grant application. 1927. Rockefeller Archive Center.)
Graph of nitroglycerine yields, Du Pont 1913 (Yates, 1989)
Late 19th century graph of the reduction of costs under different labor regimes (Yates 1989)
Yates, JoAnne. Control Through Communication. (Johns Hopkins, 1989.)