Technique, Technology and their relationship with the Body (A sociological theory on a very strange couple).

1. Technique, Technology and their relationship with the Body(A sociological theory on a very strange couple). Guido Frison Rome, May 2011 . A workshop held by Prof. Roberto Finelli, Rome 3 University. A sociological contribution to the concept of body in philosophy. Rome, May 3th, 2011 . A workshop held by Prof. Roberto Finelli, Roma 3 University. A sociological contribution to the philosophical concept of body . guido.frison@libero.it(private) (1872–1950) (1739-1811 ) ◄

2. (In-1) The content of the lecture is split in four units : In=Introduction;U1= A sociological model of technology; U2= A sociological model of technique; L= literature . General Index

3. The Strange Couple: Technology & Technique ◄ Beckmann : Technology without technique Mauss :Technique without technology IOANNES BECKMANN, Professor oeconomiae in academia Georgia Augusta, natusHoyae d. 4. Jun 1739. “Les Techniques du corps (1935). May 10th1872 – February 1th 1950

4. (In-2) Beckmann & Mauss ◄

5. (In-3) Technique and Technology are two faces of the same coin The terms technique and technology : i) refer to two different social facts ii) have different sociological foundations iii) have different historical origins Obverse (left): Caesar's head (wreathed); CAESAR DICT(ATOR) PERPETVO We will see in the following slides that the dichotomy technique/technology is mirrored by other pairs, such as: emic/etic body technique/ instrumental technique , sociological category /naturalisticcategory , social sciences/sciences of the nature mechanical machine /algorithmic machine. ◄

6. Beckmann : Technology without technique Mauss :Technique without technology (In-4) The relationship between technique and technology The determination of this relationship is much harder than celebrating the wedding of Renzo and Lucia. Many factors hamper the actual understanding of these two concepts or terms and hide their complex relationship. These are : i) Before Beckmann , the term Technologie had a complicated set of meanings and acquired a new modern meaning with Beckmann. → ii) Technologie originated within the Cameralism movement, a German school of thought, and developed in a historical period where the concept of social science did not still exist . → iii) Beckmann’s Technologie entered into a crisis due the crisis of theCameralismand the rising of the Nationalökonomie. → ◄

7. Beckmann : Technology without technique Mauss :Technique without technology (In-5 )The relationship between technique and technology v) The absence of the pair technique/technology in the lexicon of the classical and neoclassical school of economics ( three examples). ◄ → iv) The decline of Cameralism was accompanied by the rise of a sui generis German ideology centered on a multifaceted concept of Technik, with its respective philosophy . vii) At the beginning of the 20th century American Ethnology, which had originally devoted great effort to describe the techniques of non-literate people, entered into a crisis and its evolutive –diffusionist paradigm was substituted by another paradigm centered on culture, but not on techniques ( material culture). See Silverman “The Boasian and the invention of Cultural Anthropology” in Barth et ai 2005, pp 257-274.; Stocking 1974, 1996. → vi) The big number of definitions of the term technology (at minimum 41) enounced after the 1777Anleitung zur Technologie (see especially Beaune 1980). → →

8. David Hilbert (1862- 1943) (In-6) The relationship between techniqueand technology ◄ The modern technologist is like David Hilbert, the great mathematician, when he considered the Euclidian geometry on his GrundlagenderGeometrie. Hilbert began his discussion by considering three systems of things which he calls points, straight lines, and planes, and sets up a system of axioms connecting these elements in their mutual relations. Similarly , the technologist considers, in an abstract way, any set of body techniques , and tries to connect them in new combinations The anthropologist of the techniques and the technologistare modern social actors who look at the same phenomenon with a scientific approach, respectively of sociological and naturalistic type, but with different aims.

9. A conceptual map of the Unit 1.Technological, pre-technological & embedded knowledge. Beckmann’s Model of technology Hoya an der Weser ▲

10. 1.1.1-The Emergence of Technological Knowledge in the West . (U1-1) Beckmann was a follower of Johann Heinrich Gottlob von Justi, one of the leading German cameralist s of the 18th century. By using Police ordinances, the cameralist fulfilled his functions on the basis of a political obligation. The cameralist sought to promote the exploitation of natural wealth and the development of productive arts, by modifying the external conditions of the production process. Beckmann was a Linnaeus’s pupil ( see for example the two following works:: i) Linnei sistema naturae in epitomen redactum 1772. ii) Lexicon Botanicum 1801) Cameralism The Linnaean research program (Natural History) Vollständige Abhandlung von denen Manufakturen und Fabriken, 2 Bände, I (1758), II (1761) Beckmann’s Technologie. Beckmann represents our starting point, because from his time on, the term Technologieindicated both a specific sociological institution and an academic autonomous disciplinefounded by Beckmann himself. ◄

11. The features of Technologie 1.1.2-Technological knowledge is naturalistic (U1-2) Introduction to technology, or to the knowledge of crafts, factories and manufactures, above all those which are in closer connection with agriculture, Police and cameral science. In addition to this, contributions [ are given] to the history of arts. "Technology is the science which teaches how to treat (Verarbeitung) natural objects (Naturalien) or the knowledge of crafts (Gewerbe). Instead in the workshops, it is only shown [that] one must follow the instructions and the habits of the master in order to produce the commodity, [on the contrary] technology provides in systematic order fundamental introduction[s] in finding the means to reach this final goal on the basis of true principles and reliable experiences, and how to explain and to utilize the phenomena which take place during the treatment" (J. Beckmann, Anleitung zur Technologie, 2nd Ed. 1780:17). ◄

12. 1.1.3.1-Beckmann’s approach to production(U1-3) Beckmann ‘ s idea of production mirrors the cameralistic idea of economics, which begins from the natural state of materials and ends with the trade of the finished goods. Beckmann’s point of view is twofold, because from one side it is naturalistic, and from the other it subsumes those of the single producers (manufacturer , artisan or farmer) see his Beyträge zur Okonomie, Technologie, Polizei- und Cameralwissens-chaft (1777-1791) and his third edition of Justi’sVollständige Abhandlung von -den Manufacturen und Fabrikenmit Verbesserungen undAnmerkungen von Johann Beckmann, (1789) Beckmann devoted to each of these steps an essay or a work: i) the process begins from raw materials of the agriculture and natural resources handled in his Grundsätze der teutschen Landwirtschaft , 1769, then ◄

13. 1.1.3.2- Beckmann’s approach to production (U1-4) ii) It passes across the circle of production ( see the Anleitung zur Technologie , 1777) and its correspondent innovation process (discussed in the Entwurf einer allgemeinen Technologie ,1806). iii) After that, it becomes a final good, which is studied by a specific science (Vorbereitung zur Waarenkunde, 1795-1800 [waarenkunde= Science of commodities]). iv) Finally, the good is traded (see the Anleitung zur Handelswissen-schaft ,1789). ◄

14. The features of Technologie 1.1.4.1-The social actor interested on Technologie(U1-5) Technologie is a discipline, that interests only the subject who exerts legitimate Herrschaft and gives directions to the workers. "It [Technologie] must not train any weaver, any beer-maker, nor in general any craftsman (Handwerker) because to practice their art they need great ability and dexterity which [both] have to be acquired separately through boring exercise, but are useless abilities for those to whom I am referring" (Beckmann, Anleitung zur Technologie , 1780 , Vorrede of the 1st Ed). ◄

15. 1.1.4.2-The social actor interested on Technologie(U1-6) Technologie is a discipline, that interests only the subject who exerts legitimate Herrschaft and gives directions to the workers. In the eighteenth century, Police Science (Polizeiwissenschaft) was the Science of Government ,or the “science of happiness” as some scholars call it, that is a very broad concept that encompassed nearly all tasks of government. “The knowledge of crafts, factories and manufactures is indispensabie to anyone who wants to dedicate himself to the Police and Cameral sciences.”Beckmann, Anleitung zur Technologie , (1780 , Vorrede of the 1st edition). ◄

16. 1.1.5.- Summary: the complex nature of Technologie & a modest conclusion ((U1-7) ◄ i) Technological knowledge is an etic knowledge; this is a sociological fact. ii) The field to which Technologie is applied (production process) is again a social fact. iii) The form of power relationship which characterizes the Cameralist and the German absolutist Wohlfahrtstaat is a legitime Herrschaft iv) However , Technologie ‘s method is of naturalistic kind! A modest conclusion: the field of Technologie is located at the interface of sociological and naturalistic facts.

17. 1.2-An ideal type (→): Beckmann’s Model consists of four parameters (U1-8) 1- The sociological object of Technologie is something that can be defined as industrial labour. 2- The social actor interested in technological knowledge is the one who exerts a legitimate domination ((→)): over the production process 3-The ideology of the social actor who exerts a legitime Herrschaft over the production process promotes changes of the labour-process. 4-Technologie is a science or rather a naturalistic view point which examines what intervenes between the worker and his means of labour. The ideal type had already been published (Frison, G. “Second and third Part: “Beckmann and Marx. Technologie and Classical Political Economy”, History and Technology, 1993b, 3:161), and generalized to take account of some authors who handled one or both terms of the pair technique/technology (Marx, Mauss, Weber, Taylor, Schumpeter). The ideal type is appropriately modified for the needs of the present article. ◄

18. 1.3.1-Marx ‘s Technologie (U1-9) Marx is the only classical economist who was aware of the German concept of Technologie and is the one author who uses it in an economic frame. Neither A. Smith, nor Ricardo, nor J.S. Mill used this concept. Technology is defined in terms of the social process of modern industry: the principle " to resolve each process of production as considered in itself into its constituent elements and without any regard to their possible execution by the hand of man, created the new science of technology" (personal translation, Marx 1974-83, I:456, see also I:434). In his Economic Manuscript of 1861-63 (Marx 1976-82) Marx gives a different and complementary concept of technology : "just as the investigation of the use values of commodities as such [belongs] to thescience of commodities, so the investigation of the labour process in reality [belongs] to technology (Marx, 1976-82, 3.1 :49 =Marx, 1985, Collected Works, vol. 30 :55; personal translation). ◄

19. 1.3.2-Marx‘s Technologie (U1-10) The social actor interested in technological knowledge is the capitalistwho has an "undisputed authority over labourers within the labour-process“ (Marx 1974-83, I:336). The capitalist is represented essentially as an innovator who continuously tries to yield surplus-value from the production process. Marxian theory moves the concept of technology from the field of political obligation, typical of Beckmann’s work, to that of economic obligation. The capitalist’s goal is to change the patterns of use of labour-power and/or modify the means of labour in order to obtain a surplus-value. The valorisation process is achieved by means of the labour process. Are the labour process’ social relationships really split from other social facts in any kind of society? N.B.: Production process = labour process + valorisation process. ◄

20. 1.4.1-The changes of the labour process brought by Taylor and the role of technology (U1-11) The result of the changes Taylor made is that the production process is replicated in paper form before and after it takes place in physical form (Braverman, 1974 :125).T his appears to be the real cause of technology. Although Taylor never used the concept of technology, Taylor’s Scientific Management (SM) marked both the rebirth and the increase of the functions ascribed to technology. Taylor combined i) technological analysis of cutting metal machinery, and studies on belting, steam hammers and other tool machines with ii) organization and time prescriptions (technical directions). The most striking innovation of Taylor’s approach consists in the new procedures that workers were expected to comply with. Although radically transformed, these procedures still remain social facts in Mauss’s sense. ◄ Braverman, H. Labor and Monopoly Capital , Monthly Review Press: New York- London, 1974.

21. 1.4.2-The changes of the labour process brought by Taylor and the role of technology (U1-12) For Taylor, the manager was expected to be acquainted with naturalistic productive phenomena, as well as with different methods, which replicate the production through accounting and the organization’s structure controls: in such a way he could prescribe the norms that regulated production and, in particular, the use of means of labour. Such knowledge was preliminarily entrusted to the manager, more exactly to his programming office, as a separate knowledge, and continuously updated. ◄ For a pre-technologicalknowledge click on

22. 1. 6- Embedded knowledge concerning production in non- literate cultures (U1-13) Technological and pre-technological knowledge do not fit with non-literate knowledge of production . Some authors highlighted how the chaînes opératoires of some cultures were linked to kinship relationships, or to myths and religious acts (A. Radcliffe-Brown, E. Will and L. Dumont ). It t may be legitimate to suppose that knowledge of techniques is imbedded in other sociological systems. Pierre Lemonnier 2004 “..ilestillusoire de distinguer a priori les techniques des autres productions socioculturelles. Cinquante années de technologie culturelle ont amplement démontré que, du fait de l’inscription des représentations et des actions techniques dans toutes sortes de systèmes de pensée et de pratiques, .. » (2004, Pierre Lemonnier “Mythiques chaînes opératoires” Techniques & Culture , 43-44; http://tc.revues.org/1054) ◄

23. The knowledge of production procedures is usually transmitted via oral directions and by contact . Beckmann’s model permits to distinguish three main classes : b) PRE-TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE: The description of the production process takes the form of prescriptive recipes: it is of pre-scientific type and is transmitted via manuscripts. See for example the knowledge of pigments and dyes in the Middle Ages Summary- three types of knowledge concerning production (U1-14) c) EMBEDDED KNOWLEDGE : the knowledge concerning production is inscribed in various kinds of social acts. This is typical of cultures without literacy. ◄ a) TECHNOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE : the description of the production process is made with scientific procedures, and is transmitted via printed matter See for example Beckmann, Marx , and Taylor

24. A conceptual Map of the Unit 2. The three main works by Mauss on technique & technologie The determinants of the concept of technique 2.0- Mauss’ technologie has no sociological basis 2.4 – The foundation of the Institut d’Ethnologie 2.1- “Les techniques du corps” (1935). (This seminal work founds a sociological concept of technique) Separation criterion of technique from magic and ritual 2.5- Durkheim’s paradigm and the role of the concepts of morphologie sociale/physiologie sociale. 2.2 – Manuel d’ethnographie (1947). It collects the lectures by Mauss given in a long period of time beginning from 1926 2.6– Mauss may be considered the heir of the American school of technology 2.3 “Les techniques et la technologie” (1948). 2.7- The analysis of techniques by Lemonnier ◄

25. Preliminary remark: Mauss defined a concept of technique of sociological type. Moreover he tried to separate the technical act from the magic and ritual ones. « La technologie ….prétend à juste titre étudier toutes les techniques, toute la vie technique des hommes depuis l’origine de l’humanité jusqu’à nos jours. » M. Mauss  » Les techniques et la technologie », 1948 2.0 Mauss. Technique without technologie (U2-1) Mauss ‘interest on technologie dates back to the year 1900. In fact a section, devoted to technology, in the fourth volume of the Année Sociologique, was established. This occurred long before he defined the concept of technique in 1935 ( Les techniques du corps) or that of technologie (in 1948 , Les techniques et la technologie). ◄ • However, some criticisms can be made to Mauss’ concept of technologie, because in our opinion technologie is much more than a logos concerning techniques . • According to Mauss, the discipline of technologie does not need a sociological foundation because he thought that it was a logos concerning the description of techniques. • This is likely due to the fact that Mauss found soon early at the beginning of his work a ready made ethnological tradition devoted to the description of techniques, which, although labeled under different names, he called technologie .

26. ◄ iii) Mauss was not aware that German Technologieanticipated his technologie about 150 years. André Leroi-Gourhan (1911 – 1986) , a Mauss’pupil, archaeologist, paleontologist and paleoanthropologist. 2.0- Mauss: technique without technologie (U2-2) ii) Technologie is what today is called an etic( →) concept. It seems unlikely that Mauss asked himself this question: why is technology always an etic concept, while technique may be a emic or an unaware knowledge? iv) Leroi-Gourhan made the Maussian concept of technique an operative concept (see chaînes opératoire,( →)

27. 2.1 & 2.3 -Les techniques du corps (1935) and “Les techniques et la technologie” (1948) (U2-3) With this paper Mauss introduced the new concept of body technique and at the same time laid the foundation of a concept of technique , which is original in comparison to the German discussion on Technik. Like all groundbreaking work, the 1935 paper creates many more problems than it solves. Gesture is not only the movement of the body, just as language is much more than the movement of air through the larynx. As a starting point, Mauss argues that the error of the past has been to think that there is a technique only when there is an instrument. Bodily techniques are effectively like techniques ,but do not use any instrument. Bodily techniques are a subset of techniques, which may be handled as social facts, that is as social institutions . « Les techniques du corps » is a widely read and discussed work (Farnell 1999, Crossley 2007 ), because it pointed towards a field of investigation previously overlooked, at least by ethnologists. A journal with the meaningful title of Body &Societyhas been recently founded (1995). ◄

28. 2.1-Definition of bodily techniques (U2-4) “J’appelle technique un acte traditionnel efficace (et vous voyez qu’en ceci il n‘est pas diffèrent de l’acte magique, religieux, symbolique) . Il faut qu’il soit traditionnel et efficace. Il n’y a pas de technique et pas de transmission, s’il n’y a pas de traditions. » Mauss (1935 ). According to Mauss, there is no natural way in which men use their bodies. Beginning with a number of concrete examples , Mauss tried to demonstrate cultural and historical influences on bodily activities (digging, swimming, walking, marching) and introduced the concept of habitus. ◄ Mauss, M., “Les techniques du corps”, Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique, 1935, 32, pp 271-293. To download an electronic version of the 1935 paper see the following Url: http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/mauss_marcel/socio_et_anthropo/6_Techniques_corps/techniques_corps.pdf

29. 2.1-The concept of habitus(U2-5) « J'ai donc eu pendant de nombreuses années cette notion de la nature sociale de l' « habitus ». Je vous prie de remarquer que je dis en bon latin, compris en France, «habitus». Le mot traduit, infiniment mieux qu' «habitude », l' « exis », l' « acquis » et la « faculté » d'Aristote (qui était un psychologue). Il ne désigne pas ces habitudes métaphysiques, cette « mémoire» mystérieuse, sujets de volumes ou de courtes et fameuses thèses. Ces «habitudes» varient non pas simplement avec les individus et leurs imitations, elles varient surtout avec les sociétés, les éducations, les convenances et les modes, les prestiges. Il faut y voir des techniques et l'ouvrage de la raison pratique collective et individuelle, là où on ne voit d'ordinaire que l'âme et ses facultés de répétition. « (Mauss 1935) “Le corps est le premier et le plus naturel instrument de l'homme. Ou plus exactement, sans parler d'instrument, le premier et le plus naturel objet technique, et en même temps moyen technique, de l'homme, c'est son corps…… Les techniques du corps sont bien « les façons dont les hommes, société par société, d'une façon traditionnelle, savent se servir de leur corps » (Mauss 1935). ◄

30. 2.3-The 1948 definition of technique (U2-6) The 1948 paper was Mauss’ last work. This paper is not much original with reference to his former works. However, the concept of technique is defined in a way , which fits well with his former concept of bodily techniques (Mauss 1935). «on appelle technique, un groupe de mouvements, d’actes, généralement et en majorité manuels, organisés et traditionnels, concourant à obtenir un but connu comme physique ou chimique ouorganique”. Mauss 1948. The idea that techniques were instrumental by definition was a well known idea. Mauss firstly conceived bodily techniques as a a sub-set of instrumental techniques ( the instrument is the body itself). Secondly, Mauss assigned to the concept of techniquethe same sociological features typical of bodily techniques ◄

31. The 1935 paper is not a standard Maussian work and has been severely criticised 2.1.1-Five criticisms to the 1935 paper (U2-7) 1)-This paper is the transcription of an oral speech given in 1934 « Le texte publié par Marcel Mauss est, on le sait, la retranscription écrite d’une conférence donnée à la Société Française de Psychologie . Il porte la marque explicite de l’oralité…. Marcel Mauss choisit d’ouvrir sa conférence en revendiquant l’originalité personnelle de son discours, tenu à la première personne , son caractère ésotérique et, en proposant un long «récit de découverte» scientifique , débouchant sur l’anecdote de la « révélation » des techniques du corps,,,,  » Leveratto 2006.) Mauss’ biography by Fournier underlines that the transition from oral to written expression was becoming more and more difficult for Mauss in the 1930s ( 1994, p.699). 2)The separation of technique by other effective traditional acts is difficult or impossible from an emic point of view ( → ). ◄ 1999, B. Farnell “Moving Bodies , Acting selves” Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28, pp: 341.-73. 2006, Jean-Marc Leveratto »Lire Mauss. L’authentification des « techniques du corps » et ses enjeux épistémologiques”Le Portique, 17 ,http://Leportique.Revues.Org/Index778.Html2 2007, Nick Crossley “Researching embodiment by way of ‘body techniques’ The Sociological Review, pp 80-94.

32. 3-Sources are wrongly mentioned i) a source is mentioned in a non-orthodox way; ii) the word «onioni»  ( a Maoris way of female walking) is transformed into «onioi». 4- The concept of body technique is not welldefined, «…instabilité épistémologique de la notion de techniques du corps – qui peut désigner selon les cas des actions physiques dirigées et contrôlées consciemment, des automatismes corporels, des moyens de communication non-verbale, etc…..C’est en ce sens que Marcel Mauss ne propose pas qu’une description scientifique de la notion de technique du corps mais fait ressentir à ses auditeurs et à ses lecteurs sa réalité sensible et sa valeur affective.»Leveratto 2006 5- The concept of body technique does not hold. “[The paper] forced to bear the weight of being the most complete expression of his interest in techniques, the piece just does not stand up. It turns out to be conceptually confused, methodologically unrealizable as a project, and not even sociological in any systematic sense – a dead end, in other words, which has deservedly led to no further work in this line.” (Hart 2008). 2.1.2-Five criticisms to the Mauss 1935 paper (U2-8) 2008, Keith Hart Review Mauss, Marcel (ed. Nathan Schlanger). Techniques, technology and civilisation. «  Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute , 14, 467-9 ◄

33. 2.1-Summary : body techniques & the concept of technique (U2-9) 1-« -la juste compréhension ethnologique de la notion [ de techniques du corps]] suppose une modification radicale du concept de technique « à la fois en extension et en compréhension » (Leveratto 2006, Sèris 1994) 2-The historical separation of techniques & body techniques from ritual and magic is still waiting for a sociological theory. 3-According to Mauss, the phenomenon of technique is basically a social fact and in this sense it does not involve any relationships with the idea of “nature” 4-Les techniques du corps sont donc arbitraires ; autrement dit, elles sont «particulières à chaque société, au point d'en être signe» (Schlanger 1991) ◄ 1991 Nathan Schlanger, « Le fait technique total La raison pratique et les raisons de la pratique dans l'œuvre de Marcel Mauss » Terrain, 16 . 1994 Jean-Pierre Séris, La Technique, Paris, PUF, 1994, .

34. 2.2-Manuel d’Ethnographie (1947) (U-10) The Manuel d’Ethnographie, published in 1947, was made from notes taken during Mauss’ lectures by Denise Paulme. The different notes taken by his students do not converge on the effective content. However, the Manuel likely presents a picture of the nature of Mauss’ course, and gives indication of its scope. Its recent translation into English has been criticised (Atkinson 2008). 2008 ,Paul Atkinson, Manual of Ethnography – Edited by Marcel Mauss, The Sociological Review Volume 56, Issue 4, pages 699–700. 2004, Emmanuelle Sibeud ” Marcel Mauss :« Projet de présentation d’un bureau d’ethnologie » (1913) » Revue d'Histoire des Sciences Humaines, 10, pp. 105-115. 1972, James Urry “Notes and Queries on Anthropology" and the Development of Field Methods in British Anthropology, 1870-1920 “, Proceedings of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, pp. 45-57. The recipients of his lectures were scholars who became successively field anthropologists, but also administrators or colonists, who lacked professional training(for an account of the previous French and British anthropological directions until 1920 see Urry 1972). Mauss lectured “ethnographic field directions” since the beginning of his lectures at the École Pratiques des Hautes Étudesin the year 1903-04 ( Œuvres III, 354) , and successively in a more systematic way at the Institut d’Ethnologie from 1926 to 1939, soon after its foundation (1925)* *A former Maussian project (dated 1913) for the establishment of a Bureau of Ethnology failed ( Sibaud 2004). ◄

35. 2.4-The foundation of the Institut d’Ethnologie (1925) (U2-11) The aims of the lectures referred to « les méthodes de la recherche et de la description ethnographiques - les institutions des indigènes, en particulier, leurs langues, leurs religions, leurs coutumes, leurs techniques - leur histoire et leur archéologie - leurs caractères anthropologiques » (Marcel ,2004). Paris, Musée d’ Ethnologie au Trocadéro Mauss conceived ethnography as a descriptive science, and his course dealt both with what to observe and how to observe it. Mauss required the observer to be objective, and strangely, to fulfill an impossible duty, that is to record everything. The normative side of the directions is accompanied by a lack of any explicit anthropological theory in the Manuel d’ Ethnologie. 2004, Jean-Christophe Marcel, “Mauss au travail autour de 1925” L'Année sociologique, 54, 1, pp. 37-61. Section four of the Manuel is devoted to technology is important since it represents about one fifth of the entire book. At the beginning of section four, Mauss acknowledged that it is difficult to separate technical from aesthetical facts and technical facts from magic (for an introduction to this subject see →) Mauss ‘ ideas of machine and of history of technology may be argued s see → ◄

36. 2.5 –Durkheim’sParadigm & technologie (U2-12) Why was Mauss interested in techniques ? Three different determinants are observable: i) Mauss’ lectures on anthropology ; ii) Durkheim’s paradigm; iii) The American school of technology ( Powell & Mason) Durkheim’s “Morphologie et physiologie Sociale” is the conceptual basis on which the concept of technique lies. Social morphology ( Andrews 1993) and social physiology are two concepts introduced by Durkheim after a long re-working (Durkheim 1900); these were accepted by Mauss , still starting from his 1901 paper (Fauconnet & Mauss). The category social morphology has to do with social structure -the composition of the group, its internal organization, and its distribution in space- (today it could be called social ecology or social demography). Social physiology refers to the social facts that happen in the group: this comprises institutions and collective representations. By institution, Mauss and Fauconnet mean “a group of acts or ideas already instituted which individuals find before them”. Techniquesmay be defined as social institutions, and are located within the realm of social physiology. The plan of the lectures at the Institut d ‘Ethnologie mirrored the content of his 1927 paper “Divisions et proportions des divisions de la sociologie” ( Fournier 1994, pp. 597- 608), which refers to the categories of social physiology and morphology . ◄ 1901,Paul Fauconnet , Marcel Mauss, «Sociologie», in La Grande Encyclopédie, Paris, Société anonyme de la grande encyclopédie, 1901, t. 30, pp. 165-176. , [OEuvres, III, pp. 139-177.] http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/mauss_marcel/essais_de_socio/T1_la_sociologie/la_sociologie.html 1900a Durkheim Emile «  La sociologie et son domaine scientifique » version Française d’ un article publié en italien in Rivista italiana di sociologia , reproduit in Durkheim Textes Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1975, pp. 13-36.

37. 2.6-Mauss is the heir of the American School of technology (U3-13) Mauss can be considered the heir of the German and American «technology», but he became aware that these technological traditions had been weakened. «...[Mason & Powell] avaient proclamé que la technologie était une partie spéciale et très éminente de la sociologie. Ils l'avaient fait indépendamment des savants allemands, Bastian et ses élèves. Cette tradition s'était malheureusement affaiblie en Allemagne comme en Angleterre. » Mauss 1927, Œuvres III,195, 196 Mauss highly appreciated John Wesley Powell (1834-1902) , as the “fondateur d'une technologie ethnographique “(1927 ,ibid.) and consideredhisworksimilar to Morgan, being Powell and Morgan « esprits profonds et originaux et, comment dirais-je, trop américains, ne peuvent être suivis qu'avec d'infinies précautions » (La Nation, 1920)*. This is likely due to the Powell’s foundation of the American Bureau of Ethnology. 1873, J. W. Powel l with a Paiute « chief » Bureau of American Ethnology Collection *Much later, Lowie disagreed and sustained that concerning social organization, Powell in no way advanced beyond Lewis H. Morgan. (1956) 1956, Robert Lowie,” Reminiscences of Anthropological Currents in America Half a Century Ago” American Anthropologist , 58, pp. 995-1016.) Section four of the Manuel d’Ethnologiementions many scholars who published their works in the American Anthropologist or the Reports of the U. S. Bureau of Ethnology , that is: Otis Mason (basketry, traps, travel & transportation, but also on the influence of environment upon arts); Frank Hamilton Cushing (Pueblo pottery); Clark Wissler (horse in the development of Plains Culture ); Franz Boas (Eskimo, Kwakiutl and Jesup North Pacific Expedition) ◄

38. There is no room in the present lecture to discuss the path of the French anthropology school of technology from Mauss to Lemonnier and the present debate via Leroi-Gourhan (see Coupaye 2009). Here it is sufficient to observe that Lemonnier develops the concept chaîne opératoire , and makes operative the concept of technique by means of five parameters: 2.7-Lemonnier’s analysis of technology (U2-14) 2009, Ludovic Coupaye & Laurence Douny « Un état des lieux de l’anthropologie des techniques en France et en Grande-Bretagne »Techniques & Culture52-53 2009 : pp 12-39 1992, Pierre Lemonnier, Elements for an Anthropology of technology, Ann Arbour, University of Michigan 1992. i) matter -the material on which the technique acts; ii) energy- the forces which move objects and transform matter *; iii) objects - artifacts, tools…; iv) gestures - they move the objects involved in a given technique; v) specific knowledge- it may be conscious or unconscious.. It is apparent that Lemonnier’s technology, being a meta-language which refers to techniques, involves sociological and physical parameters, showing once more that technology is an etic discipline which is located at the borders of natural and social sciences. Lemonnier’s frame handles a given technology and permits to focus three different levels: a) The relationships within the five parameters , when one is changed; b) The level of the relationships between different technologies; c) The relationships between a given technology and other social facts. ◄ *N.B.: Energy in physics Is the capacity of given body to do work., therefore force and energy are not synonymous.

39. CONCLUSIONS (U2-15) • We are convinced that technology and technique are not linguistic variants of the same concept, but the first term refer to a logos which uses naturalistic and sociological categories and the second to an object firstly sociologically described by Marcel Mauss . • Some advancements on the understanding of the couple technique/technology are due to : • the efforts of the British Centre for Durkheimian Studies , which published some of the works by Mauss into English ; • the presence of a strong and compact French anthropology, that always considered itself the heir of Marcel Mauss’ approach to techniques . • By some recent papers ( see Schatzberg 2006 and Mitcham & Schatzberg 2009) ◄

40. The End Thank you for your attention

41. (L-1) The set of terms and concepts used in the present lecture For some of the following terms short definitions are given.

42. (L-2) The Crisis of Cameralism ( first half of 19° century): some determinants Beckmann’s Technologie was a cameralist subject and entered into a crisis at the beginning of 19th- century with the crisis of Cameralism. Polizeiwas in the later seventeenth- and eighteenth-century German-speaking states a principle of social, normative and performative order, but not primarily coercive. On the meaning and legacy of Cameralism (see Tribe 1988 , Lindenfeld 1997, Wakefield 2009). According to Backhaus & Wagner (1987, 2005) Cameralism cannot be treated as an example of German Mercantilism. Change in the ideology iv) The ideology of the Cameralism , which refers to the well-ordered police state,was substituted by an another ideology leaning towards a conception of government by law and by a Kantian ideal of the person free from the paternalistic protection of the state. The crisis of Cameralism was due to : i) the Napoleonic wars; ii) the rise of new academic subjects called the sciences of the state (see Lindenfeld 1997, sections II and III) ; iii) the reception of the Wealth of Nations and the constitution of the Nationalökonomie *. Wilhelm Georg Friedrich Roscher (1817 - 1894) is considered to be the founder of the old historical school of political economy , which established the Nationalökonomie as one the substitutes of Cameralism in the mid 19th century. Roscherattempted to supplement classical economics with historical material, to search for permanent laws of economic development ( see Tribe 1988, chapters 7-9) . *2008 Richard Bowler, “Mediating Creative Nature and Human Needs in Early German Political Economy” History of Political Economy 40:4, pp 633- 669. ◄

43. (L-3) -The meanings of Technologie from the beginning of the 17th century until Beckmann‘s Anleitung zur Technologie (1777) Source, 1978, Martin Füssel Die Begriffe Technik, Technologie, technische Wissenschaften und Polytechnik , Barbara Franzbecker, Bad Saltzdettfurt after 1968. Seibicke, W. Technik, Versuch einer Geschichte der Wortfamilie um τέχνηin Deutschland vom 16. Jahrhundert bis etwa 1830, VDI :Düsseldorf. ◄

44. (L-4) TheYoung Historical School : Engineers, economic sociology and Technik From Technologie → to Technik ( late 19th century) The late 19th century German sociology has lost the term Technologie but instead uses Technik, with a larger semantic field. The word Technik came to have so many meanings that it can no longer be precisely defined in a way that conforms its usage. Technik entered German social science (Simmel 1900, Sombart 1901, 1902-1908, 1911, Schmoller 1904 ) through the discourse of late 19° century German engineers ( see for example , Reuleaux 1884 and von Engelmeyer 1899 ). In Sombart’sDermoderneKapitalismus, the concept of Technik plays a fundamental role. For the transition Technologie to Technik see Frison 1998 and Mitcham & Schatzberg 2009. 1884, Franz Reuleaux , "Kultur und Technik" Wochenschrift d. Niederösterr. Gewerbe-Vereins reprinted in n1925 Carl Weihe, Franz Reuleaux, und seine Kinematik , J. Springer, Berlin. 1899, P.eter K. von Engelmeyer “Allgemeine Fragen der Technik” Dinglers Polytechnisches Journal, , vols 311, 312, 313. 1900, Georg Simmel ˝Die Herrschaft der Technik „ in Philosophie des Geldes, Duncker & Humblot , Leipzig, pp. 520-535. 1900-1094 ,Gustav Schmoller , Grundriß der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre, 2 Teilen, München-Leipzig, Dunckler & Humblot, erster Teil 1900, zweiter Teil 1904. 1902-1908, Werner Sombart, Der moderne Kapitalismus. Historisch-systematische Darstellung des gesamteuropäischen Wirtschaftslebens von seinen Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Final edn. 1928, 1901, Werner Sombart,“ Technik und Wirtschaft „ Jahrbuch der Gehe-Stiftung zu Dresden, VII, pp 51-74 . 1911, Werner Sombart, „Technik und Kultur“ Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft, 33, pp. 305-347. 1998, Guido Frison “Some German and Austrian Ideas on Technologie and Technik between the end of the Eighteenth Century and the Beginning of the Twentieth”, History of Economic Ideas , VI, 1, pp 107-133. 2009 Carl Mitcham and Eric Schatzberg “Defining Technology and The Engineering Sciences” inDov M. Gabbay, AnthonieMeijers, Paul Thagard, John Woods (Eds.) Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, Elsevier pp. 27- 63. Werner Sombart (1863 – 1941) ◄

45. Source: 1978 , Martin Füssl Die Begriffe Technik, Technologie , technische Wissenschaften und Polytechnik , Bad Salzdethfurth, p.6. (L-5)Technik and its meanings Definitions may be of two types: a) & b). a)Essential definitions: theyare also often called connotative or intensional, insofar as they specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be a member of a class. One example might be the claim that technology ( Technik) is the systematic human making of physical objects and/or the using of such objects: technology is human behavior (genus) involved with the systematic making or using of artifacts . b) Denotative or extensional (also enumerative) definitions,: these latter simply list all the members of the class. see 2009 Carl Mitcham and Eric Schatzberg ◄ Seibicke, W. Technik, Versuch einer Geschichte der Wortfamilie um τέχνηin Deutschland vom 16. Jahrhundert bis etwa 1830, VDI :Düsseldorf.

46. (L-6)- Pre-technological knowledge in the medieval scribal era The case of the manuscripts on dyes and pigments ( in short colours) The second ideal-type is obtained by modifying Beckmann’s model -One parameter, called the printing culture parameter, is added to Beckmann’s modelin order to take account of the medium features and the social process, which transmits the written record. 2-Two parameters of Beckmann’s model are relaxed: 2.1- Variable three should be weakened. This links innovation , the ideology of the social actor interested in technological knowledge and the knowledge of the production process. 2.2. Variable four (a naturalistic description of the labour-process) is tenable only from the Anleitung zur Technologie on. So, we may have different kinds of pre-technological knowledge, that can be more or less associated with rituals and magic ideas. ◄

47. (L-7)- Pre-technological knowledge in the scribal era.The case of the medieval manuscripts on colours The type of knowledge transmitted by the manuscripts on colours depends by the following parameters i) the kind of ruling relationship exerted on the production process; ii) the mechanisms of reproduction of the written record; iii) the specific cultural values of literacy. iv) The magnitude of the social distance between the worker and the writer of the manuscript. ◄

48. (L-8)- Pre-technological knowledge and literary activity Six hypothesis regarding the Producers and the Recipients of the manuscripts on colours: According to the literature the mss on colours were written: 1 – by and for alchemists; 2 –by painters (artisan-artists) and for painters (artisan-artists); 3 – for specific patrons; 4 – by and for apothecaries; 5 – for guilds and corporations; 6 – for literary aims with either cultural-ideological objectives or for a given system of cultural-philosophical values, e.g. motivations of alchemic type or transmission of significant traditions, etc. ◄

49. (L-9)-Pre-technological knowledge and literary activity Oppenheim’s Hypothesis 6 – for literary aims with either cultural-ideological objectives or for a given system of cultural-philosophical values, e.g. motivations of alchemic type or transmission of significant traditions, etc. Available evidence show s that hypothesis No 6 is the most likely. The six different hypotheses quoted above may be traced back to one only, by means of Oppenheim‘s hypothesis. Oppenheim sustained that the clay tablets describing the glass production were the result of a literary activity. Similarly, the manuscripts on colours are likely the product of literary activity., above all those of early Middle Ages. For an overview see Tolaini, Tolaini, F. “Proposte per una metodologia di analisi di un ricettario di colori medievale”, in Il colore del Medioevo,Arte, simbolo e tecnica, Atti delle giornate di studi (Lucca, 5-6 maggio 1995), Lucca, 1996, pp 91-116. Oppenheim, A. L. “The Cuneiform Texts ” in Oppenheim, A. L. ; Brill R. H.; Barag Von Saldern A. Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia, The Conning Museum of Glass Press:Corning , 2nd printing, 1988, pp 1-104.. ◄

50. (L-10) Emic & Etic The neologisms “emic” and “etic,” derive from an analogy with the terms “phonemic” and “phonetic,” ( the terms were coined by Kenneth Pike in 1954).  The emic perspective refers to the intrinsic cultural distinctions , that are meaningful to the members of a given society .      The etic perspective, relies upon the extrinsic concepts and categories that are meaningful for scientific observers : this corresponds to the phonetic analysis which relies upon the extrinsic concepts and categories that are meaningful to linguistics (e.g., dental fricatives). From an etic point of view , scientists are the sole judges of the validity of an etic account, just as linguists are the sole judges of the accuracy of a phonetic transcription. Literature 1954, Pike, K. L.. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structures of Human Behavior. part 1. Glendale, Calif.: Summer Institute of Linguistics. [Preliminary ed.]1976, 1976, Marvin Harris “History and Significance of the Emic/Etic Distinction “ Annual Review of Anthropology, 5 pp. 329-350. 1985, Kenneth E. Lloyd, “Behavioral Anthropology : a review of Marvin Harris' cultural materialism” Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 43 , pp. 279-287. ◄