338 BOOK REVIEWS

.John Julian Ryan, 77re Hurnanizatio~ of Man, Newman Press, New York, 1972, 246 pp. -_ .,,-,- -IL

On frrst seeing the: title, one wonders why another commentary on the collective condition of modern technological man. The back cover promises not only that “there must be a way of changing the situation in which people find themselves,” but that the author “knows” the principles and methods to follow. In the introductorv note we find that the title could have just as easily been “A Manifesto for Dropouts, Neither Communism nor Capitaiism, Beyond Philistria, Walden III, Consciousness IV, The Profes- sional Society, The Legitimate Technology, or Science Is Not Enough.”

The central theme of this essay is pm&the making, performing? d;isl.ributing, and using of goods and services. The author argues that it is our praxis not orrr theories that shapes our condition, and if we are to “find a way out of the world of the shoddy and move into a world of the genuine”, we must adopt the practices and values of the craftsman and artist and abandon those of the businessman and scientist. Emphasis on praxis echoes what others have recently pointed out (e.g., John Platt and Paulo Freire), but here the admonitions of what we must do to change are spelled out ill detail. The first step is to understand th\e difference between:

a true purpose and profit, “the purpose of a maker or a performer is to produce something that does well what it is meant to do . . . it is not primarily to make money and to assure the comfort, status and power that money can purchase.” (p. 15)

the difference between needs and wants: “to c‘ll! 5 thing functional when it does no more than satisfy the needs of the body and some of the lower needs of the mind is simply misleading; it is to saggest that the requirements of what distinguishes man from a lower animal are of little or no importance. It is to sanction implicitly the view that it is legitimate to make things for the satisfy?ng of mere wants, rather than true needs, and that, since the satisfying of such wants for a profit is simply good business, it is 31~0 legitimate to create them and pander to them unrestrainedly, even when doing so means failing to meet higher needs.” (p. I?)

the difference between the collective and the community: “.4 collectivity may be merely a group who find it profitable to live together for the greatest convenience of its members s,imply as individuals, all agreeing to help one another only insofar as doing so suits the wishes of each and does not harm the others> A community, however, is one which is unified by the desire to cooperate in satisfying one another’s needs as persons-- ideally, to satisfy all the human needs of everyone as well as possible.” (p. 90)

%t: second step is to adopt the methods of the craftsman and apply them in all areas-education, medicine, government, religion, as well as commerce. The examples are numerous and persuasive. The true artist or craftsman is concerned with how his product is used, how well it st.;rves the user. “the conscientious maker will hardly boast of his guarantee . . . and certainly he wrll not boast of his providing a multitude of service stations” to repair ‘nis product. The true artist or craftsman designs for the particular need not the average or comilron reed. The craftsman considers his material organic, not “raw” stuff on whi&r to irb~pcsc his stamp.

An itemtied list of :he specific recommendations ro be found in this essay would serve neither the reader rtor ‘?he au~h&s inient. Any one in itself could easily be criticized, especially c;ut of conttzxt of the whnlI:. Eut exa~mining parts rather than looking at the

BOOK REVIEWS 339

whole is exactly what’s wrong with using the scientific worldview as a nlodel of ’

educating, healing. or governing. For those of us who have been reared in the tradici,>ns of profit-driven commercialism and value-free scientism, the image of apprenticing ourselves to master craftsmen will upset many of our most deeply ingrained notions.

1 suspect that the response to Ryan’s diagnosis of our present social ills and his prescription of what must be done w4 depend entirely, on how one views the future. Those who view the future as a bigger and faster version of today will disagree with Ryan’s basic diagnoses of what is and what could be. Those who view the future with alarm and predict catastrophic discontinuities unless we “coo1 it” will be disappointed in Ryan’s failure to identify technology as the “bad guy”. Those who view the future in images of greening landscapes, miniaturized technologies, or encompassing megalopolises will be bored or slightly amused with the naivete of Ryan’s images of apprentices who find meaning in purposeful and artful making, doing, and performing. But despite the current fascination with futures based on trend extrapolations, predictions of catasrro- phes, or shocks over what has already come to pass, much is to be learned in this essay which probes deeper into the dynamics of change than do most futures studies. Ryan’s expectation of the world to come is that of one of the greatest discontinuities yet conceived, because he hopes for a change in worldview that displaces the very foundation of many of our most common institutions and practices.

The claim that a change in worldview is at hand will be disquieting not only to the public but even to most futurists. This seems to be what this essay is calling to our attention. Many readers will no doubt choose to dismiss the claim of both the author and this review and continue with “futures-as usual” as non-futurists continue with “busi- ness-as usual”. The author is a purist and often reminds the reader of the derivation of words such as “physics”, “nature”, or “cosmetic”, whenever it contributes to the argument to do so. Some readers will stop on this level and miss the underlying intent, because Ryan’s rather quaint use of language includes such homey metaphor:. a-, barbecue ovens and apple pie. A member of women’s lib will be jarred by the use of the personal pronoun ‘$he” i.1 every place except in reference to typing (p, 186), pie-making @, 1% or hairdos (p. 204). But in a time when technology admittedly misuses language in support of expediency and efficiency, it is pleasantly jarritlg to find in a discussion of

today? ills an appreciation of

“a bwutifut script, a graceful walk, a resonant voice. good manners, ard all the rest.” (PI61

or in an empathetic apology for student unrest to hear that studer.+s,

“blinded by thr very education they want to chmgc . . .”

suffer from

“the great delusion they have absorbed that college is a cmvcnieut :,\;se,nbly place for the study of

science and letf.ers, rather than a leisurely, but dedicated community fcr the Cultivation (Jf Mxd

arts.” @. 137)

or in an exposition of what function is not meant to be. to find

6.a so-c&d functiondl house Serves better as a setting for those who wish to hold cockt:lil Parties *an for those who wish to pray, mcditatc, study, work, dine, raise a fhmilY, ~WW the +ck+ rest,

hold meetings, dil: in it.” (p. 196)

‘JONNA WILSON