Scientism and Technocracy in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Scientific Management by Richard G. Olson (review)

Richard Olson, a historian of science who has written extensively on the conflict of science and traditional approaches, explores the idea of scientism and its implications in the twentieth century. Specifically, the book is about technocracy and technocrats who believe that individuals with specific technical and scientific knowledge should make the key decisions in all aspects of society. He follows sociologist Robert Putnam's defining characteristics: technology is far superior to politics, politics and especially democracy are incompetent ways of decision making, conflict and ideology are unnecessary impediments to optimal production, and distribution of income is unimportant. While many monographs and articles have been written on aspects of the subject, Olson claims his is the first to view the subject as a whole.

The ideology of technocracy begins with American engineer Frederick Taylor at the turn of the century. Taylor insisted that engineers control all parts of the industrial process, including selecting individuals for particular positions and through time-motion studies determining the one correct way each task would be done. Both ownership and unions would relinquish their roles to the truly knowledgeable engineers, and craft traditions would be eliminated.

As his ideas spread rapidly through industry, Taylor extended them to all social institutions. This coincided perfectly with American Progressives' cult of efficiency. Indeed, several historians have argued that this admiration for technology and its applications was the one thing that this disparate group of reformers shared. The first professionals to adopt the engineering perspective were public administrators. Before Taylorism their motto was to be "on tap not on top," but gradually most came to believe that "true democracy is attained only when men are endowed with authority in proportion to their ability to use it efficiently" (p. 22).

Taylorism spread rapidly through Europe and parts of Asia, usually through students who had come into contact with technocracy during study in the United States. Each country adapted the technocratic perspective differently; Japan, for example, took a human relations outlook with a guarantee of lifetime employment. Soon, authoritarian governments such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany recognized its utility for their goal of centralized control and production at all costs.

Policymakers in the cold war era adopted what Daniel Sarewitz calls the myth of infinite benefits: that science and technology will automatically lead to more public good (p. 87). Issues like the elite expert conduct of the Vietnam War led many to question technocratic assumptions. One of those experts on Vietnam, Walt Rostow, developed a universal model of economic development. The application of this model to the third world by local experts and American advisers led in many cases to increased economic inequality and political chaos.

Throughout, Olson notes the dilemma between the appeal and utility of scientism and its lack of attention to traditions and especially democratic values. In his conclusion, Olson notes contemporary institutional attempts to bridge the gap and achieve a synthesis of the best of each. Among the most exciting are the Danish Consensus Conferences, where scientific experts and local community members meet to share information and then convene with policymakers.

While Olson's scope is praiseworthy, considerable gaps and factual or editorial errors exist. In his very limited section on scientific management and the arts, he doesn't mention futurism, which fits his thesis perfectly. The American pragmatist and greatest public intellectual of the first half of the twentieth century is "George" Dewey and his fellow pragmatist is Charles Sanders "Piece" (p. 41). In a list of American imperialists, he notes the reluctant William McKinley but not Theodore Roosevelt (p. 110). He does quote the ideologist of imperialism, Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana, but attributes it to a non-existent Senator John Beverage of Mississippi (p. 109).

Still, Olson's ambitious and intelligent coverage of an important and relatively unstudied topic makes it highly recommended.