THE TECHNOCRATS 1919-1967: A CASE STUDY

OF CONFLICT AND CHANGE

IN A SOCIAL MOVEMENT

by
David Adair

B .A. , S i r George Williams University, 1967

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department
of

Political Science, Sociology and Anthropology

DAVID ADAIR, 1970

SIMON FIEA'SER UN~VERSITY

J a n u a r y , 1970
 APPROVAL

Name: David Adair

Degree: M a s t e r 'of A r t s

Title of Thesis: T h e Technocrats 1919-1967: A Case Study of Conflict and Change

in a Social Movement

Examining Committee:

.
P r 6 f e s s o r G RUSE,
Senior Supervisor

P r o f e s s o r David F Aberle, .
External Examiner
UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH COLUMBIA
VANCOUVER, B C. .
 ABSTRACT

The study examines the organizational and ideological changes within the

Technocracy movement during the period 1919-1968. An attempt i s made to account

for the development within the movement of active reform factors at different points

in time. The contrasts and conflicts between the active reform factions and the usu-

ally more passive, though ideologically revolutionary main segment of the movement,

a r e focussed on and argued to be important determinants of subsequent organizational

and ideological changes.

Technocracy i s compared with the millennium movements, and the relationship

between participants1 conception of their role in terms of effecting change, and their

time orientation on the relative imminence of the millennium, i s examined. In this

regard it i s argued that a belief in an imminent millennium tends to militate against

active efforts on the part of members to "make the revolution1'.

It i s argued that Technocracy can only be considered a social movement for

approximately half of its history, and the question: When does a movement cease to

be a movement? , is dealt with.

Technocracy i s described a s a small-scale revolutionary movement in a pre-

dominantly non-revolutionary social setting. The problems and paradoxes confronting

such a movement, and the various ideological and tactical alternatives open to it a r e

examined in some detail. The meaning to its members of the organization in its later

stages is analyzed, and it i s argued that a number of the psychic attitudes of partici-

pants, normally considered to be explanations of such persons1 propensity for initial

recruitment into a movement may, in fact, be a consequence of participation rather

than a cause of it.

Finally, the reasons for the relative lack of internal change and conflict in the

movement since 1948 a r e examined briefly.

n

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract.............................................................. iii

Chapter One .Technocracy: The Questions To Be Asked .................. 1

Notes .......................................................... 8

Chapter Two .The Historical Setting: The Great Depression And Its
Movements ..................................................... 9

Notes .......................................................... 12

Chapter Three .The Technical Alliance: Forerunner of Technocracy ....... 13

Technocratic Thought ........................................... 14

Notes .......................................................... 22

Chapter Four .The Emergence Of Technocracy And The Early Public

Response ...................................................... 24

The Historical Record ........................................... 24

The Emergence Of Technocracy .................................. 25
Notes .......................................................... 31

Chapter Five .Technocracy 1932.1933. Craze Or Movement ............... 32

i s m ......
Ambiguity And Inevitability .The Emergence Of Millenni a 1' 34
Notes .......................................................... 40

Chapter Six .Technocracy 1933-1935: The Development Of An Organized

Movement ...................................................... 42

The Development Of Two Factions ................................ 42

Notes ..........................................................

<
57

Chapter Seven .Technocracy Inc .. 1934 To The Second World War ........ 60

Notes .......................................................... 81

Chapter Eight .Total Conscription ...................................... 84

Notes .......................................................... 92

Chapter Nine .V.an couver After The War ................................ 94

Notes .......................................................... 107

Chapter Ten .The Split Of 1948 ......................................... 109

Contributing Factors ............................................ 109

Notes .......................................................... 118

Chapter Eleven .1950 To 1968 .Changing Themes And Declining Activity ... 120

Notes ...................................................... 124

iv
 Page

Chapter Twelve .Technocracy Today In Vancouver ....................... 125

The Current Events Classes ..................................... 131

Notes .......................................................... 140

Chapter Thirteen .Some Theoretical Considerations Involved In The

Problem Of "Being A Technocrat Today" .......................... 142

Nature Of Commitments Demanded Of Participants ................. 148

Nature Of Control And Compliance Applicable To Participants ....... 150
Nature Of Definitions Of Participants And 'Outsiders' ............... 151
Notes .......................................................... 154

Chapter Fourteen .The Educated Technocrat And The Future Of The

Movement ...................................................... 156

Notes .......................................................... 162

Chapter Fifteen .Summary And Conclusions ............................. 163

A Question Of Definition ......................................... 165

Notes .......................................................... 177

I Books ...................................................... 178

I1 Pamphlets. Periodicals. And Fugitive Literature ............... 179
III Unpublished Material ........................................ 182

Appendix 1 .Methodological Appendix ............................. 183

Notes ................................................ 189
.
Appendix 2 .Technocracy Inc Suggestion Form ................... 190

\ LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

. Graphs

.
Fig 4 : l Articles On Technocracy. New York Times 1932-1933 .... 27
.
Fig 4:2 ...........
Periodical Article On Technocracy 1932.1933. 27
Maps

Fig . 7:l
Howard Scott's 1937 Continental Tour ................... 72
Fig . 9:l
Technocracy Sections In Canada And U S.A. .............. 95
Fig . 9:2
Milligan Tour - March 1946 ............................ 96
Fig .
9:3 Fearman Tour .May 1946 ............................. 97
Fig .
9:4 Gerald Tour .May 1946 ............................... 98
Fig .
9:5 McCaslin Tour .May 1946 ............................. 98
Fig .
9:6 F r a z e u r Tour .February 1947 ......................... 99
Fig .
9:7 Porter Tour .February 1947 ........................... 100
Fig .
9:8 Milligan Tour .March 1947 ............................ 100
Fig .
9:9 Porter Tour .March-April 1947 ....................... 101
Fig .
9:10 Wildfong Tour .May 1947 ............................. 102
.
Fig 9: 11 Templeton Tour .June 1947 ........................... 102
 CHAPTER ONE

TECHNOCRACY: THE QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED

The Technocracy movement in the U. S. A. and Canada has existed in one form

or another for approximately thirty-seven years. The intellectual origins can be

traced back considerably further (see Chapter Three), while a group called the Tech-

nical Alliance, which was organized in the 1918-1920 period, was clearly a forerunner

of Technocracy as it developed the ideology that became the early basis of Technocracy

and included several of the principal figures who launched the Technocracy movement

in 1932-1933.

During this period of otherwise impressive longevity, the movement has had

no discernable social-political effects on the wider society, and while its ability to

survive is interesting, i t is neither Technocracy's long life nor its 'works1 that justify

our study of the movement. Neither is the movement a particularly good example or

refutation of a specific model or conception of movements. Nor is i t an ideal case of

a particular cell in some typology of movements. In fact it is the very opposite of this

latter case that initially makes Technocracy of potential interest. There a r e two

aspects of this interesting difficulty. In the first place it is not at all simple, regard-

less of the definition chosen, to decide just when Technocracy was, or was not, a

social movement, and in the second place it is even more difficult to decide what KIND

of movement Technocracy was. Various typologies a r e constructed for different uses

and employ, therefore, differing criteria, and may focus on a wide variance of sub-

jects even within the same general field of interest. Hence it is in itself neither

strange nor contradictory that Technocracy can be described by a wide range of dif-

ferent labels. Hence the movement can, without any contradiction, be referred to as:

Millennial, Utopian, Messianic, Authoritarian, Scientistic, Revolutionary, and

Reformist. The utility of these designations starts to become questionable, however,

when upon detailed examination of the history and development of the movement it

becomes apparent that not only a r e they less accurate at some periods than at others,
I
but in addition they a r e sometimes inappropriate or misleading when applied to par-

ticular segments of the larger movement. For example, it is quite clear that the

goals of that branch of the movement that still survives (Technocracy Inc. ) have been

rather consistently revolutionary in that they have advocated fundamental re-struc-

turing of capitalist society, while on the other hand several of the other Technocracy

groups have tended more toward a piecemeal reform approach.

Another commonly used typological distinction focusses on the means through

which a movement seeks to attain its ends. Here too we find different segments of the

Technocracy movement holding to radically different formulations. It is also apparent

that within these divergent (and often competing) groups there occurs considerable

fluctuation over a period of time, over these matters of tactics.

Unless Technocracy is to be regarded as unique, o r atypical of social move-

ments, which seems unlikely, the above observations raise questions both about the

general utility of such typological distinctions and about their more specific value with

regard to the Technocracy movement. There a r e two related possibilities that I see

a s relevant. In the first place it may be that the kinds of distinctions such labels allow

a r e too general. That is, too many attributes a r e subsumed under the same category,

\
with the result that some potentially interesting disc epancies o r divergencies a r e

lost. For example, we might observe that movement X is a revolutionary movement

and proceed to analyze it a s such, failing to note that there have been within the

movement recurrent tendencies toward reformism. In consequence, no analysis

would emerge on the subject of factors producing such trends in the movement.

The second matter, which is related to the first, is that such typological dis-

tinctions, in part because of excessive generality, may tend to produce a static

analysis of the movement. If, for instance, we a r e describing an existing o r now de-

funct movement and we conclude that this is, or was, X kind of movement, it i s quite

possible that we will fail to go further and examine contradictory attributes at various

points in time. Normally our categorization is not s o absolute a s this, and what is

said, o r at least implied, is that this i s (or was), by and large, X kind of movement.
Tendencies and tensions toward change, and contradictory characteristics within the

movement, a r e thus regarded as of minor importance s o long as the main body of

the movement is not fundamentally altered. A second way in which a static bias is

produced is that either implicitly or explicitly the movement is categorized, not (as

above) by an overall or summary historical evaluation, but at one particular point in

time. A sort of conceptual 'snapshot1 is produced of the movement. Change i s thereby

ignored. Without going into an elaborate discussion of static versus dynamic models,

it is clear that static concepts a r e of dubious value in analysis of what is BECOMING

a s opposed to what IS. We anticipate that the more static a concept is the less value

it will have in helping us to understand the dynamics of movements.

It should be clear that the sort of difficulties we a r e considering with regard to

these general typological distinctions a r e variously significant, depending upon the

type of movement under consideration. They would be relatively insignificant, for

instance, in movements that a r e short lived and consistent in terms of ideology, or-

ganization, and tactics, in which there is a high degree of consensus among partici-

pants about what the movement is and should be, and how it should pursue its goals,

and in which this consistency is maintained throughout the life span of the movement.

This i s not to suggest that there will be no conflict or debate at any point, but only

that it never comes to the point where it generates internal factions o r l'wingsl'. Such

internal consistency may not necessarily require a short life span, but is most likely

to be found in short-lived movements. It seems likely, also, that most such move-

ments will be those usually designated reform movements. The 'ideal1 case is the small-

scale reform movement that originates in response to a specific issue, propagandizes,

recruits participants, exerts some sort of pressure on the relevant other group or

individual, and then, upon attaining its ends within a relatively short time (to its own

satisfaction at least), disbands o r perhaps changes its function and becomes some-

thing other than a movement - say perhaps a voluntary association.

The 'ideal' opposite case to this, and the one where the typological problems

raised a r e most severe, is the movement (like Technocracy) that exists over an
 extended period of time, experiences extensive and differing pressures, both internal

and external, generates changes in ideology, organizational form, and recruitment

tactics, and goes through splits or schisms that may result i n the emergence of

opposing "wings". These "wings" o r factions may separate from the original move-

ment and form new movements, or may remain within the movement and force changes

in various aspects of the larger movement. There a r e several other possible effects
of such conflicts and probably empirical examples of each logical possibility. The
most fundamental change, of course, occurs when such a conflict shifts a movement,

from one cell in a typology to one diametrically opposed. Say, for instance, where a

movement that was revolutionary becomes a reform movement.

To label these long-lived, heterogeneous, changing movements by one general

label may be excessively simplistic and have the result of obscuring potentially signi-

ficant internal tensions and changes, o r more simply, movementsf processes.

U These comments a r e intended only to set a general framework from which to

to develop the more specific questions that a r e the prime focus of this study of

Technocracy. It is not my intention, therefore, to develop the, a s yet, analytically

'rough' distinctions between these 'ideal' cases into a full blown typology. It is

enough to draw a distinction between the simpler, more homogeneous sort of move-

ment and the more complex, heterogeneous type of which Technocracy is an example.

Given these general observations it is now possible to deal with the more detailed and

specific questions relevant to this study.

It is implicit in the above that our questions center around matters of internal

movement change and process. In examining these it is necessary to analyze in some

greater detail the already noted difficulties of typological distinction.

Throughout the study of this movement, the parallels that I considered most
I

I
striking and persistent were between Technocracy and those movements usually des-
I
cribed as millennial. To be more precise, some segments of the movement, a t

some points in time, displayed a number of attributes similar to those of the millen-

nial type of movement. For instance, both a r e revolutionary in the sense that parti-
cipants anticipate a fundamental restructuring of basic societal institutions. In

addition, both regard "time as a linear process which leads to a final future";' in

other words, 'la decisive consummation of all history".2 Technocracy developed an

ideology that has been described by Henry Elsner J r . , who is perhaps the best informed .

student of the movement, a s a form of ~ c i e n t i s m . ~

The parallels between millennial

beliefs and Scientism a r e pointed out most clearly by Jarvie in The Revolution in
4
Anthropology. A messianic form of leadership is an additional parallel between

most millennial hlovements and Technocracy. 6 Other similarities could be noted,

but two a r e of immediate significance.

The first involves participants' expectations regarding the relative immediacy

of the coming millennium, while the second involves the more far-reaching matter of

the role of the group in bringing about the millennium.

On the former, Talmon says, "Radical millenarian movements regard the

millennium as imminent and live in tense expectation and preparation for it. 11' The

inclusion of the phrase 'land preparation for it" in an observation on time orientations

is most appropriate as the two matters a r e closely intertwined. It seems likely, for

instance, that the kinds of preparation regarded as suitable will depend at least in

part upon the group's conception of the relative imminence of the coming millennium.

This is one of the specific questions that we will examine in the case of Technocracy.

A related problem, also relevant to Technocracy, is the group's response to changes,

alterations, and outright failures of the prophecy of a coming millennium. The more

specific the prophecy is, of course, the more open it is to being perceived a s failing.

Technocracy is interesting in this regard in that at one point in its history it had a

very clear and specific prophecy, which was in no conceivable sense realized.'

The second parallel with millennial movements that is particularly relevant

concerns changing definitions of the appropriate role of the movement in bringing

about the anticipated changes. On this subject Talmon says, "All millenarian move-

ments share a fundamental vagueness about the actual way in which the new order will

be brought about. " And further, on the role of participants, "The followers of these
movements are not the makers of the revolution; they expect it to be brought about

miraculously from above. " l o

These statements a r e perfect descriptions of the position of some segments of

the Technocracy movement at several specific points in its history. This latter quota-

tion from Talmon could be quite misleading, however, if interpreted to mean that such

movements (and Technocracy) are all patiently and passively awaiting the millennium.

Not only are these movements, in comparison with each other, variously active o r

passive, but any specific movement may be differentially active at different points in

its history. That is to say, the movement may fluctuate between more or less active

positions.11 A common definition of the appropriate role of participants for the more

passive movement (or a movement in a passive period in its history) i s to ''gather

together, to watch for signs of the inevitable advent, to engage in ritual preparation

and purify t h e m ~ e l v e s ~ ' . ' ~Depending on the movement, this position may o r may not

involve extensive and aggressive recruitment of other participants. There are, of

course, a wide range of tactics available to the more active movement, but the essence

of this position is the belief that the group can and should contribute to bringing about

the millennium. On the surface this 'contribution1 seems somewhat contradictory to

the belief that the millennium is both imminent and inevitable. We have already noted,

however, the variability of the predicted time sequence as well as the possibility of

prophecies being altered. The most common occurrence is for the advent to be "put

off1' for a bit, but i t is quite possible for the movement to develop a belief that the

timetable may be shortened and the advent of the millennium hastened through the

actions of the group. Technocracy developed a variation of this theme in that its

members believed that while the collapse of the ?'Price systemd3 was inevitable, the

millennium, although also inevitable, would not necessarily follow immediately. An

interim period of Fascism was seen as quite possible. In addition, a transition period

of approximately ten years (following Price System collapse or the period of Fascism)

was seen as necessary prior to the accomplishment of the full operation of the Technate

(Technocracy's name for the new society). This is a somewhat more complex timetable
than those of most millennia1 movements, and it was periodically revised, but the

essential components a r e the same .

It should be clear by now that the matter of anticipated time sequences and the

group's view of its role in bringing about or preparing for social change a r e highly

interdependent. Not only a r e a number of differing conceptions possible, but oscilla-

tions between two o r more positions within any one movement a r e quite conceivable.

The observation that such is the case is, of course, of limited value without

(a) some analysis of the factors contributing to such fluctuations, and (b) a discussion

of the other attributes of the movement that seem to vary with such changes. The

attempt to meet these requirements provides the central theme of this study of

Technocracy. This movement, with its long history of internal conflict and schisms,

its oscillation between activism and more passive roles (conceptualized by the

Technocrats as activism versus education), and its persistent ambivalence with

regard to reform versus revolution, make it an ideal case for such a study.
 NOTES
1
Yonina Talmon, "Pursuit of the Millennium: The Relation Between Religous
and Social Change1', Archives Europeennes De Sociologie, III, No. 1 (1962), p. 130.
2
Ibid.
3
Henry Elsner, J r . , "Messianic Scientism: Technocracy, 1919-1960. t1
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan,
1963.
4
.
I. C J a m i e , The Revolution in Anthropology (London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul Ltd., 1964),p. xiv.
5
Talrnon, p. 133.
6
Elsnerls evaluation of Technocracy as messianic is explicit in the title of his
dissertation that was noted previously. The matter is also discussed throughout his
study at some length.
7
Talmon, p. 130.
8
One of the questions that is interesting with regard to the prophecies of move-
ments, sects, and so forth, i s the effect on the movement if and when the prophecy
fails to come true. This problem i s the subject of Leon Festingerts interesting study,
When Prophecy Fails. See: Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter,
When Prophecy Fails (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1964) Several years
after this study was completed an attempt was made to replicate it that resulted in some
interesting qualifications of Festingerls original hypothesis. See: Jane Allyn Hardyck
and Marcia Braden, t1 Prophecy Fails Again, A Report Of A Failure To Replicate1?. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXV, No. 2 (l962), pp. 136-141.
9 Talmon, pp. 131-132.
lo Ibid., p. 131.
l1
In this context Talmon argues that most millennia1 movements tend more often
toward the more activist position rather than passively awaiting the millennium.

l2 Talmon, p. 132.
l3
The term llPrice Syateml? is original to Veblen. The Technocrats have always
been adamant that the term was original to their movement. At one point I wasted a
great deal of time searching Veblenfs early work to eee if he had used the term prior
to his contact with the early Technocrats, (Veblenfs relationlship to the movement ie
discussed in a later chapter.) I found that he had, but rn convinced that no one ehould
be tempted to follow the matter m y further, eo I will dilspense with the relevant refer-
ences.
 CHAPTER TWO

THE HISTORICAL SETTING: THE GREAT DEPRESSION AND ITS MOVEMENTS

Technocracy was the f i r s t of a number of social movements generated by con-

ditions in the decade of the Great Depression (1929-1939). To try to describe social

conditions in North America during this period (in a few pages) would be both presump-

tuous and futile. The notes that follow a r e merely an attempt to sketch in the rough

outlines of the social context in which Technocracy arose.

While the more academic treatments of the Depression a r e no doubt important

for a full understanding, there a r e a number of more anecdotal and descriptive reports

that have been of particular value to this student, who qualifies in Galbraithfs t e r m s a s

one who "wasn't even born in 1929, which bespeaks total innocencen.' The titles of

some of these texts a r e in themselves instructive; f o r example, The Winter Years

(J.H. Gray), Just Around the Corner (Robert Bendiner), The Anxious Years (F. Fuller),

The Great Depression (D. A. Shannon). These accounts do provide some statistical

data, and while in some studies data on production, employment, distribution, and s o

forth, seem sterile in contrast with more literary descriptions of social conditions,

in the case of the Depression there is some drama in the very extravagance of the
changes for the worse.

Unemployment figures vary, and the accuracy of any s e t is open to question;

however, those given by Shannon for the U. S. A. do not disagree too widely with
2
various other estimates. He cites the following estimates:

March 1930, 3,250,000 - 4,000,000 unemployed

March 1931, 7,500,000 - 8,000,000 unemployed
March 1932, 11,250,000 - 12,500,000 unemployed
March 1933, 13,577,000 - 16,000,000 unemployed

Total population in the U. S.A. in 1930 was 122,775,046.~ The unemployment esti-

mates for Canada (population 10,374,681 in 19314) a r e less startling but still sub-

stantial:'

1929 - 107,000 unemployed 1932 - 639,000 unemployed

1930 - 341,000 unemployed 1933 - 646,000 unemployed
1931 - 442,000 unemployed
Unfortunately the extremely approximate nature of these figures makes it pointless to

work out comparative unemployment rates for the two countries. James C . Davis

provides some broader comparative data on the situation in the U. S. A. "The national

private production income in 1932 reverted to what it had been in 1916. Farm in-

come in the same year was a s low a s 1900; manufacturing a s low a s in 1913. Con-

struction had not been a s low since 1908. Mining and quarrying was back at the 1909

level. For much of the population two decades of economic progress had been wiped

out. 116 The deprivations were, of course, made relatively more acute by contrast

with the preceding economic prosperity and optimism of the 1920's. As J . H. Gray

noted, "Our world stopped and we got off. t 1

Not peculiar to this era, yet somehow uniquely irrelevant and preposterous

were some of the classically Marie Antoinette-like statements attributed to various

Establishment spokesmen. A few, of course, were simply poor observers. Henry

Ford, for instance, commented in January of 1931 that "the country is far better off

today than it was a year agof1.* The Reverend Norman Vincent Peale, who at least

cannot be faulted for inconsistency in his views over the years, claimed that nothing

more drastic was required than "one good prayer meeting in Wall ~ t r e e t l l . ~Herbert

Hoover commented in October, 1932, "Perhaps what this country needs is a great

poem", and, Y3ometimes a great poem can do more than legislation. "lo Shrewd

analysis was not lacking, with Mr. Coolidge contributing, W h e n more and more

people a r e thrown out of work unemployment r e s u l t s ~ ~ . "One of the Du Ponts, with an

acute business sense, refused to advertise his products on Sunday afternoons because,

"at three o'clock on Sunday afternoons everybody i s playing The incantation,

"The Economy Is Fundamentally Sound", was s o commonly a part of public pronounce-

ments as to make its original source both cloudy and irrelevant. Not all of the popu-

lation, of course, accepted this view, and "Over a hundred thousand American workers

applied for jobs in the Soviet unionf1.I3

This small sample of uninspired solutions and absurdities gives some idea of

what a golden age this was for social critics. The period had all of the attributes
suggested by theorists as essential to revolution, and indeed the possibility of revolu-

tion was not considered farfetched at the time, for as Bottomore notes; llEven staid

and responsible citizens began to take seriously the possibilities of revolutionary

movements in America. 11"

A revolution and a revolutionary movement are, of course, different things.

While there was no revolution, there were a number of movements, and of these some

had clearly revolutionary goals. Bendiner, speaking of left-wing movements alone,

claims that, llThere were almost as many sects, creeds, cults, factions and fractions

among the reformers and revolutionaries as the Christian community had endured in

the most schismatic years of the Reformation. l1 l 5 Outside the left-wing, the variety

was endless. California contributed the Townsend Movement and Upton Sinclairls

EPIC (End Poverty In California). In the East, Father Coughlin was demonstrating

the reach of the radio (and its financial potential), as was William Aberhart in Canada.

Huey Long came out of the South with a Share-Our-Wealth program, and had he not

been assassinated, might conceivably have effected the attempted coalition of his

followers with Coughlin and Townsend. A. J. Smith and William Dudley Pelley tried

American variations on a European theme, with Khaki shirts and Silver shirts respec-

tively, but achieved rather limited results. Critics suggested that Smith1s primary

interest was marketing shirts .I6 Edward Bellamyls works became popular again (as

did those of Veblen) and Bellamy Societies were formed in various places - probably
in greatest number in California, where some a r e reported to still survive." With

doctrines for the haves and the have-nots respectively, were Dr. Frank Buchman

(Moral Rearmament) and Father Divine. However, llThe earliest and most grandiose

[The evaluation is Robert Bendinerls] by far of the new Utopias was that of the Tech-

n o c r a t ~ ~ ~ . The
' * fact that the Technocrats were the first 'out of the gateTwas largely

bepause both their ideology and the core of their leadership were lfrevivalsllof an or-

ganization that had revolved around Thorstein Veblen more than a decade previously.

It is with this organization, the Technical Alliance, and the ideas it developed,

that we must begin our examination of Technocracy.

 NOTES
John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash 1929 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1954), p. 1.
2
Paul Webbink, "Unemployment in the United States, 1930-1940, " The Great
.
Depression, ed. D. A. Shannon (Englewood Cliffs, N. J : Prentice-Hall, Inc., l96O),
p. 6.
3
.
Leon E Truesdell, "Population and Social Conditions, " Encyclopaedia Britannica,
xxn, (1958), p. 732.
4 Stephen B. Leacock and Charles Clay, "Canada, Social And Economic
Conditions ."
Encyclopaedia Britannica, IV, (1958), p. 711.
5
Walter D. Young, Democracy And Discontent (Toronto: The Ryerson Press,
1969), p. 46.
6
James C. Davies, ''Toward A Theory Of Revolution, " American Sociological
Review, XXVII, No. 1, (February, 1962), p. 16.
7 James H. Grey, The Winter Years (Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1966), p. 8.
8 Robert Bendiner, Just Around The Corner (New York: E. P, Dutton & Co., Inc.,
1968), p. 7.
9
Ibid., p. 6.

lo Ibid., p. 8.

Ibid., p. 18.

l2 Ibid., p. 49.

l3 Shannon,p.l.
T.B. Bottomore, Soqilil Criticism In North America (Toronto: CBC Publication.
1966), g. 26.

l5 Bendiner, p. 100.

An account of both of these venture8 may be found in. Arthur M. Schlesinger.

.
Jr , The Polities of Upheaval 1935-1036 (Bodon: Noughton Mifflin Co. , 1966), pp. 79 -81,
Sylvia E. Bowman, ed. and introd., Edward Bellamy Abroad (New York: Wayne
Publishers, 1862), p. xx,

Bendiner, p. 187.
 CHAPTER THREE

THE TECHNICAL ALLIANCE: FORERUNNER OF TECHNOCRACY

There were three distinct phases of the Technocracy movement in North

America, each having, of course, various consequences for the succeeding periods.

The first was the rather short-lived Technical Alliance, which, while led by

Howard Scott, had received its original organizational impetus and a good number of

its ideas from Thorstein Veblen. The second was the period of intense public interest

and debate centering around the 'findings' of the Energy Survey, directed by Scott at

Columbia University. During this period there was no one organized movement, but

rather a proliferation of groups across the continent with diverse degrees of congru-

ence with (and comprehension of) Howard Scott and his associates. The remaining

years, to the present, have seen amalgamations, conflicts, and schisms, until

Scott's Technocracy, Inc, , is the only remaining organization.

This section will examine the formation of the Technical Alliance (a decade

prior to the stormy emergence of Technocracy), some of the groups and ideas ger-

mane to its initiation, and the brief though later much debated relationship of

Thorstein Veblen to the organization.

The formation of the Technical Alliance brought together an otherwise heter-

ogeneous group of men who had in common a conviction of the primacy of technology

and related matters in social affairs. Harold Loeb, who was later to be heavily

involved in Technocracy, described Howard Scott's basic argument in this phase as,

lfTechnology was the revolutionary agent of our period11.' Technocracy's summary

definition of itself (which later became a slogan) was to be, "Technocracy is science

applied to the social order",' In a letter to The Nation in December of 1932,

W;H. Smyth was to claim credit for coinage of the term, and at least some credit
for coinage of the term, and at least some credit for its widespread dispersal in a

series of articles, the first of which was printed in the February, 1919, issue of

Industrial Management, He says:

 Technocracy is a proposed new system and philosophy of government. It
implies scientific reorganization of national energy and resources, co-
ordinating industrial democracy to effect the will of the people. This is the
concept and philosophy of government that I originated and for which I coined
and defined the word ~ e c h n o c r a c ~ . ~

We have no reason to doubt that Mr. Smyth created the word Technocracy. His

implied claim to be also the originator of Technocratic thought is less acceptable;

these concepts precede Mr. Smyth by a good number of years.

TECHNOCRATIC THOUGHT

In detailing the history of a term or a set of ideas, one is constantly plagued

by the tendency toward infinite regression. Similarities and antecedents (logical if

not consequential) continually assert themselves from deeper and deeper in the his-

torical record. This is of some importance when discussing a social movement, as

it is not uncommon for a movement to assert the unique and original nature of its

ideas. This is especially true of messianic movements, with which Technocracy was

to share a number of similarities. In actual fact, movements a r e situated in a social,

historical context, and their belief systems a r e part of a broader history of ideas and

social action. It is as well, then, to have some idea of the history and development of

the ideas that a particular movement represents and consequently changes, modifies,

etc.

The history of Technocratic thought could in itself be the central concern for

an entire thesis; however, as this is not our primary interest, we will touch only a

few major figures in a limited historical period.

Daniel Bell assigns the role of 'father1 of Technocratic thought to Claude-Henri

de Rouvroy, le Comte de s a i n t - ~ i m o n . ~Felix Markham's discussion of Saint-Simon

notes that while "most historians have been interested in Saint-Simon simply as the

forerunner of socialist thought and have considered him only from that anglef1: he is

also important to positivistic conceptions that Markham defines a's ?'the application of
6
scientific method to every aspect of nature and human experiencef1. In Saint-Simon's

society, ''the certainties of science will replace the dogma of the medieval church;

the scientist and captains of industry will replace the feudal lords as the national
 15

7
leaders of societyn. The economic system of Capitalism, o r more specifically in
later Technocratic terms, the Price System (after Veblen) was to replace the church
as the primary antagonist, though the church was to remain a consistent though minor
opponent.
The later Technocratic analysis, however, would remain highly positivistic.
Frank Arkwright, an early Technocracy writer, sums up this orientation in the con-
cluding paragraph of his book, The ABC of Technocracy (1933). llTechnocracy has
one fundamental principle and that is that the facts involved in the fundamental operation of
our society are metrical, in other words, the working of our great social machine is

susceptible to measurement. tt Given this infinite ability to fknowt, there still re-
mains to examine the use to which this knowledge will be put. The following quote
from Saint-Simon illustrates further some of his basic conceptions on this matter.
All privileges will be abolished and never reappear since the most complete
system of equality which can possibly exist will be constituted. The men who
show the greatest capacity in the positive sciences, in the fine arts, and in
industry will be called by the new system to the top echelon of social prestige
and will be placed in charge of public affairs?

In Saint-Simon's conception, then, we have on the one hand a particular methodology

in which total confidence may be placed, and on the other, a society in which "equal-
ity'! surplants tlprivilegestl, The former implies a particular conception of knowledge,
while the latter is only one of the potential uses to which knowledge could be put. In

Technocratic thought, however, the more common assumption is that the societal
form envisioned is somehow a direct and necessary consequence of 'true', 'scien-
tific' knowledge, The distinction between knowledge and the use to which it is put is
of course a crucial one, and it ie the fundamental failure of Technocratic thought that
the question of "knowledge for whatffis usually treated either superficially o r not a t

all,
In order to di~lucesa raecond major figure in Technocratic thought it is neces-
sary to make a distinction between the Technocratst a n a l y ~ i sand critique of the
existent social order, and their highly detailed de~criptionof an alternate society, It

ie t h i ~latter aspect that allows us to see rnoclt clearly the eimilsritiee of Technocracy
 and the work of Edward Bellamy . In other words, it is Bellamyl s description of the

good society that is very similar to both Saint-Simon and Technocracy rather than

his analysis of Capitalism, which is far more class-based than that of Technocracy.

Henry Elsner, J r . , has provided a good summary of the Bellamy/Technocracy par-

allels with regard to the new society:

The organization of all industries into a few large scale, publicly owned
units, administered by technical experts who are selected from within the
ranks of the units concerned.

A bureaucratic, rather than industrial-democratic organization of the

workplace.

Equal, independent income issued to all members of society as a right of

citizenship,

Income distribution through a non-monetary accounting system wherein

the registration of items purchased serves as an automatic means of
estimating future production requirements.

The elimination of political government, i. e. officials other than those at

the heads of the productive, distributive, and professional units, and the
abolition of political parties .I0

There a r e other parallels as well; for instance, the selection of the army a s

the most appropriate organizational mode 1, the insistence on the uniquely Ame rican

(and specifically non-European) character of their ideas, and the highly automated

technology of the future, in which human labour would largely have disappeared.

This latter point leads us into an area that may at first seem somewhat

irrelevant, yet deserves some attention as it is the area in which Technocrats and

non-Technocrats a r e most liable to share at least speculative interest, and which

should serve to suggest one of the important appeals of Technocracy. In at least one

sense the central preoccupation of Technocracy is the manner in which technology

could be used for human welfare, were its use not restricted by current social and

economic relations. The more general question is, of course, the broad relationship

between technology and social structure, the Technocratic formulation of this ques-

tion often tends toward consideration of technological potential (particularly in terms

of the new society) as if it were largely independent of social and economic relations.
1
 This is but one manifestation of a tendency sometimes apparent in positivism,
wherein what is most measurable is defined as most significant, with the consequence
that such things as social and economic relations, attitudes, beliefs, and values

a r e seen as of minor relevance. This is an important key in understanding Techno-

cratic thought. Consideration of the use of technology divorced from the inhibitions
of social values, meaning, and the complexities of the social determination of human
attributes, leads inevitably to the definition of any existing social structure as totally
irrational and unnecessarily restrictive, insofar as the apparent potential of technol-

ogy considered separately from such complications seems endless. Given a simpli-
stic enough set of initial premises, the explanation of the nature of this irrational and

constrictive society is likely to be largely in terms of conspiracy. In any case the

abundance of technologically detailed utopian writing (I would include much of science
fiction writing here) testifies to the appeal of such ideas."
An early book by J. A. Etzler (1836) is interesting in this vein, and its elab-
orate title is itself instructive: The Paradise Within The Reach of All Men, Without
Labor, By Powers of Nature and Machinery. An Address To A l l Intelligent Men. In
~ basis of Etzlerls proposal, he tells us, is: "That there a r e powers
Two ~ a r t s ! The
in nature at the disposal of man, mellien[sic] times greater than all men on earth
could effect, with their united exertions, by their nerves and sinews. If I can show

that such a superabundance of power is at our disposal, what should be the objections
against applying them to our benefit in the best manner we can think of? "l3I3e proceeds

with a highly detailed description of the potential uses of power and technology that
continually anticipates both Bellamy and Technocracy. He then challenges any of his
readers to disprove his claims, but adds the characteristic Technocratic provision:
I offer the opportunity for fair and open discussion upon the subject. But it is
a mathematical matter, and none of vague opinion, or mere wordy dispute, as
some might perhaps fancy. Any assertions without mathematical argument,
will, and must be disregarded by me.I4

The appeal of technological positivism is not only that it simplifies previously

complex social affairs, but that small-scale projection of the application of technology
to everyday human existence is made possible for a wide range of people.15 Hence,
writing in this field almost inevitably tends toward detailed description of the
liberated technology of everyday affairs.

Another writer of this genre was Chauncy Thomas, who wrote The Crystal
Button in 1891, just seven years before Bellamy was to write Looking Backward.
Thomas envisioned a centralized, Technocratic society and anticipated some of the

concepts of Scientific ~ a n a ~ e m e.I6n t

The Scientific Management movement is not as important an intellectual
antecedent to Technocracy, but it had, on the other hand, a more direct organization-
a l influence on the formation of the Technical Alliance. Nevertheless, the essential
conceptual agreement should not be ignored. Taylor would clearly agree that in
matters of importance, 'the facts of life a r e metrical'. Scientific Management was
in many ways simply a comprehensive application of the Technocratic vision to a
specific institutional sector; where Technocracy was to stand for "Science Applied to
the Social Orderf1, Scientific Management was for "Science in ~ a n a ~ e m e n t " . "
One of the popular slogans of Taylorism was !'the substitution of science for
the rule of thumbf'." The Scientific Management school is, of course, most common-
ly related to the writings of Frederick W. Taylor; but a later disciple, H. L. Gantt,

provides the direct link to Veblen and the Technical Alliance. Two themes from
Taylor's work are emphasized and extended in Gantt's writing and later became
central to Technocracy: "the substitution of 'facts' for 'opinion1 and the new hegemony
of the engineer",19 In December of 1916 Gantt created the New Machine, "an organi-

zation of engineers and sympathetic reformers under Gantt's leadership, which

announced its intention to acquire political as well as economic poweru.20 Aside from
the basic themes noted above, the program was not altogether clear and the organi-
zation survived for only a brief time, many of its members entering government
service with the United States entry into the war." The New Machine was a preview

and a precedent for the Technical Alliance of 1920.

In the Fall of 1919, Veblen was writing a series of articles for D&l, which
was to become The Engineers and The Price System; a group of engineers with the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers was finalizing plans for extensive dis-
cussions with H. L. Gantt; and the New School began functioning in New York with

Veblen on the staff. In November, however, Gantt died and Leon Ardzrooni, who was
both a colleague of Veblen's and associated with the engineers of the ASME, wrote on
behalf of Veblen to Guido Marx in California in order to renew and detail Veblen's
invitation to Marx to lecture at the New School. Marx agreed to come, and his

course was listed as "Conferences on the Social Function of the ~ n g i n e e r " . ~ ~

Ardzrooni summarizes these events as follows:
Veblen conceived the idea of getting together a group of like-minded folk
chosen from among young economists , accountants, engineers and techni-
cians generally to form the nucleus of a 'soviet of techniciansf, a brief
working plan for which was contrived in The Engineers and The Price
System. In due time the New School came to be the headquarters for such
.
a group. .'"
Veblenls associations with this group were apparently limited by his poor health, and
Marx was somewhat less than impressed with one of the more active, though enig-
matic of the members, Howard Scott. Joseph Dorfman recounts Marx's comments:
Marx says that when he reached New York 'no mature members of the
A. S. M. E. appeared in the picture1. Howard Scott was one of two men brought
around for me to interview. I was not favourably impressed with him. I
could not believe he was a trained technician, his use of technical terms being
highly inaccurate and his thought processes, to my mind, lacking in logical
structure and being basically unrealistic. His chief idea at that time was an
industrial survey which would have required the complete staff and facilities
of a census bureau. In brief, I chose to have a s little to do with Scott a s
possible and advieed Veblen and Ardzrooni to that effecte2'

In the Fall of 1920, Veblen and Ardzrooni were giving a course together at the
New School in "The Productive Use of Resourcest', in which Scott, Stuart Chase, and

several others participated.25 At the same time the Technical Alliance was formed,
with Howard Scott listed as head engineer, Unlike the New Machine, the Alliance had

no overt political goals; the prospectus, however, reiterated perepectfves that should
by now be familiar.
The solution to the industrial problem is primarily an engineering one; there-
fore it is eseential that an alliance of technicians be formed to ascertain and
present the results of the preeent non-technical knowledge of the country at
the eervice of the people that industry may be released from arbitrary rule.'6
 20

In addition, the Alliance set as its goal "an alliance of all individuals essential to the

technique of production, including engineers, scientists, architects, educators,

physicians and sanitary experts, foresters, managers, accountants, statisticians,
etc. 112' The prospectus included the name of a llTemporary Organizing Committeef1
that probably encompassed the entire membership.28 Included were:

Howard Scott. .......................Chief Engineer

Sullivan W. Jones ...................Secretary
Frederick L. Ackerman. ............ .Architect

Carol L. Alsberg. ......................... .Chemist

Allen Carpenter. ..........................
.M. D.
L, K. Cornstock ............................Electrical Engineer
Stuart Chase. ............................. .C. P. A.
Alice Barrows Ferdandez .................. .Educator
Richard C . Tolman ........................ .Physicist
John Carol Vaughn. .........................M .D .
Bassett Jones ............................. .Electrical Engineer
Robert H. Kohn ........................... .Architect
Benton MacKaye. ...........................Forester
Leland Olds. ...............................Statistician
Charles P. Steinmetz .......................Electrical Engineer
Thorstein Veblen .......................... .Educator
Charles H. Whitaker. ...................... .Housing Expert
The value of the list is somewhat questionable insofar as, upon sending a copy
of the prospectus to M a n , Ardzrooni commented that !'I have learned that most of the
men whose names.. . appear here were never consulted nor informed of any meeting,
eg., Veblen. Veblen gave them a calling down for using his name without asking him

about The Alliance did carry out several studies; one on the lumber industry for

the I. W. W, , a major study on industrial waste, and surveys on coal, milk distribution,
and luxuries .30 By March of 1921, an executive committee was struck to reorganize the

Alliance, and on May 16 the committee reported that they had asked Scott to provide
a detailed accounting of the Alliancef s financial position and to turn over the books of
which he was in charge. When he declined to do so the Technical Alliance was for all
intents and purposes d i s ~ o l v e d . ~ '
For a brief period Scott worked for the I. W. W. as director of a bureau of
Industrial Research. This arrangement was to last until 1921, when Scottfs mentor

on the I. W. W. executive, Ralph Chaplin, was sent to prison.)2 Within a decade

Scott would be one of the most controversial figures in North America, but between
1921 and 1932 "He became a familiar figure in Greenwich Village. . .haranguing all

who would listen about the energy bases of civilization and the need for energy units

of measurement in production and distribution, and describing a technologically con-

trolled Veblen had argued in the Memorandum on a Practicable Soviet of

Technicians that a successful revolution in America must necessarily be one insti-

gated and controlled by the technicians and that:

Before any overt move can reasonably be undertaken: (a) an extensive

campaign of inquiry and publicity, such as will bring the underlying popula-
tion to a reasonable understanding of what it is all about; and (b) the working
out of a common understanding and a solidarity of sentiment between the
technicians and the working force engaged in transportation and the great
underlying industries of the ~ y s t e m . 3 ~

He concluded his essay with the statement:

There is nothing in the situation that should reasonably flutter the sensibili-
ties of the Guardians or of that massive body of well to do citizens, just yet.3"

Both of these statements were to seem oddly prophetic in just over a decade.

Veblen may well have overestimated the potential for revolutionary consciousness on

the part of the 1ftechnicianstf.36He certainly could not have anticipated the public

furor these ideas and the attempted application of his criteria of pre-revolutionary

activity (see (a) above) were to cause in the early years of the depression.
 NOTES
1
Harold Loeb, The Way It Was (New York: Criterion Books, Inc., 1959), p. 44.
2
M. Adamson and R.I. Moore, ed., Technocracy: Some Questions Answered
(New York: Technocracy Inc. , l934), p. 3.
The Nation, V, (December, 1932), p. 646.
4
Daniel Bell, llNotes on the Post-Industrial Society, The Public Interest, VI,
(Winter, 1967), p. 31.

6
Ibid., p. xxi.
7
mid.
Frank Arkright, The ABC of Technocracy (New York: Harper Brothers
Publishers, 1933), p. 73.

Frank E. Manuel, The Prophets Of Paris (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers
Inc., 1965), p. 135. Those wishing to examine, in more depth, the utopian and tech-
nocratic thought of Saint-Simon in particular, and this period in general, will find this
text by Professor Manuel to be a fascinating and scholarly treatment of the subject.
lo
Elsner , pp. 79-00. The relationship of Technocracyls leader, Howard Scott,
and Bellamy i s not solely a matter of similar conceptions with no indication of actual
influence. We do know that Scott was interested in Bellamy and engaged in discussions
with people in Hollywood, at one point, about the possibility of making a film version of
Looking Backward. Herbert Roth, "Bellamy Societies of Indonesia, South Africa, and
New Zealand, l1 Edward Bellamy Abroad, ed. Sylvia E. Bowman (New York: Twayne
Publishers, l962), pp. 240-241.
l1
In the early 1930fs several science-fiction writers recognized the affinity be-
tween Technocracy and the concerns of science-fiction. Hugo Gernsback, the author
of the term lf science-fictionf1, and publisher of Science Wonder Stories, also published
the Technocracy Review for a short time in 1933. Several years later the "Dean" of
science-fiction, Ray Bradbury, said that Technocracy was the embodiment of lfallthe
-
hopes and dreams of science-fiction. We've been dreaming about it for years now, in
a short time, it may become a reality,l1 For this latter quotation and further details
on this subject see: W.H.G. Armytage, Yesterday's Tomorrows (Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1968), p. 132.

l3 Etzler, p. 3.
l4 Ibid., p. 101.
l5 It is in this context that the Technocrats1 definition of fprofeseionalt aocial
analysists ae obscurantists and apologists, is most underetandable, Not only a r e auch
 persons seen a s defenders of an irrational social system, but their 'obscurantism' is
seen a s primarily a form of professional exclusion and protectionism.
l6
Vernon Parrington, J r . , American Dreams, A Study of American Utopias
.
(2d. ed. New York: Russell and Russell Inc , l964), p. 67.
l7
Samuel Haber , Efficiency and Uplift, Scientific Management in the Progressive
E r a 1890-1920 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, l964), p. 42.

l8 Ibid.,p.43.

l9 Ibid.

20 Ibid.,p.44.

21 Ibid., p. 47.
22
Joseph Dorfman, Thorstein Veblen And His America (New York: Augustus M.
Kelley, Publisher, 1966), p. 454.
23
Leon Ardzrooni, Veblen and Technocracy, " Living Age, CCCXLIV, (March,
1934), p. 40.

24 Doltman, p. 454.

25 Ibid.

26 Elsner, p. 17.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 Dorfman, p. 460.

30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., and Elsner, p. 18.

32 Elsner, p. 19.

33 Ibid., pp. 24-25.

34 Thorstein Veblen, The Engineers and the Price System (?'HarbingerBooksI1;
New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., l963), p. 150.

1 35 Ibid., p. 151.
36 I am inclined to the view that Daniel Bell, in his introduction to the Harbinger
edition of The Engineers and the Price System, exaggerates Veblenls gullibility on
this matter and underestimates his powers of observation.
 24

CHAPTER FOUR

THE EMERGENCE OF TECHNOCRACY AND THE EARLY PUBLIC RESPONSE

THE HISTORICAL RECORD

The Technocracy movement usually ranks rather low in the intellectual inter-
ests of historians of the Depression years and hence is normally afforded rather cur-
sory attention.
The composite image of Technocracy that is created is one of a bizarre and
inconsequential movement of short duration, the early success of which is only under-
standable a s a response to the severe strains of the initial years of the Depression.
It is of course likely that any student who examines, in some detail, a small
segment of a historical period, especially a segment a s specific as the affairs of one
relatively small movement, will feel that writers of more general accounts have been
inadmissibly lax and deficient in their treatment of that student's interests. Such
inadequacies, therefore a r e probably of limited importance, with the exception of the
impression commonly given with reference to the life span of Technocracy. As noted
above, the movement is usually depicted as a 'flash in the pan' that gained wide public
notice for several months in 1931-1932 and subsequently faded from existence,' o r
was "reduced" to the status of a Californian cult thereafter. Were such the case, the

reader might well question our continued use of the term social movement with refer-
ence to Technocracy. In fact, while it is clear that the span of widespread public

interest was limited to 1931-1932, the period of greatest strength in terms of member-
ship was, a s nearly as can be determined, late in the Depression era, 1938-1940.
Furthermore, the original leader of Technocracy, Howard Scott, still presides over
a number of Technocracy sections today, some 35 years after it is supposed to have

become defunct .2
Two further preliminary comments a r e relevant here. The first is a caution

that the intrinsic bizarreness and/or irrationality of a s e t of ideas is neither a simple

matter nor a reliable guide to prediction of the success or failure 'of a movement. We
should note, for instance, how the Social Credit Movement in Alberta, which, as T. B.

Bottomore says, belongs "generally with the theories of ~ e c h n o c r a c ~and

" ~would not

appear to challenge the Technocracy movement on grounds of intrinsic rationality, was

'
yet able to gain sufficient support to become the elected government in 1935. Secondly,
a premature acceptance of the judgement of Technocracy as "irrationalist", "bizarre",

and s o forth, would obscure the fact that a t least part of the movement's ability to retain

members (and still attract to a limited degree) is the number of its early predictions

that have, in the last 15 years, either, been realized o r become increasingly relevant.

THE EMERGENCE OF TECHNOCRACY

The initial impact of Technocracy was a s dramatic and far reaching a s its

present obscurity is complete. The extensive interest of 1931-1932 in the Technocratic

ideas was, at least in part, a function of its being the first of the Depression move-

ments. The interest in Technocracy came at a time when the country was rejecting

the "the economy is fundamentally soundv administration in favour of Rooseveltls New

Deal, and on occasion the ideas of Technocracy and the New Deal tended to overlap

and combine, One partisan of both Roosevelt and Technocracy said, "The economic

revolution is approaching with greater speed than we realize. Only skillfull stateman-

ship - the statemanship of a Roosevelt, and the sound economic principles, the

principles of Technocracy, can successfully lead us out of the Chaos and Despair into

which we a r e plunging. lt4 The same writer went on t o conclude that the only solution

to Chaos would "best be accomplished by vesting supreme and emergency power

in some one man who had the confidence and respect of a majority of the American
people. That man is Franklin D. Roosevelt to whom should be given dictatorial powers

in the approaching crisis. '15 The enthusiasm (if not the conflicting loyalities), and

some might say the fervor, displayed above were not atypical of a large number of

people in 1932. It is not, then, necessarily a concession to irrationalist conceptions

of movements to note that, while clarity of the early Technocratic ideas was never a

primary characteristic, this seemed not to inhibit public interest, which was phenom-

enally high.
 The public first heard of the ideas (it is probably premature to refer to it as a
movement as yet) when Howard Scott delivered a speech to a meeting of the American
Statistical Association in New York, June 15, 1 9 3 2 , ~ in which he reported some of the
'
early 'findingst of and Energy Survey that he was directing at Columbia University. On
August 6, the New York Times reported on information released by Dr. Walter
Rautenstrauch, head of the department of Industrial Engineering at Columbia. The
Energy Survey was under the joint auspices of this department and the Architects
Engineering Committee of New York, and was going to trace the "industrial and agri-
cultural development of the United States during the last 100 years in terms of produc-

tion, employment and energy expanded1'.' About 150 of the projected 3,000 charts had
been completed and the project was being directed by Howard Scott as ltconsultant
' . ~ further points in this article a r e of interest. The first is the
t e ~ h n o l o ~ i s t l Two
statement that:
The facts revealed by the charts completed through 1920 clearly indicate the
coming of the present depression, although the figures point to 1930 instead of
. .
1929 as the year of the crashtt. . and. . secondly, Our greatest difficulty is
the fact that the tremendous energy expended in this country is not distributed.
Under the present industrial system unemployment will continue to increase
until a maximum is reached, which will bring about the collapse of the system:
At what point the name Technocracy came about is not clear. The newspapers,
however, soon began referring to this work at Columbia as the findings of the Techno-
crats, and/or Technocracy. One partisian described the next few months as follows.

ltThe gospel of Technocracy is spreading through our schools, universities and

churches, Wall street is exhibiting an intense but worried interest and it ie whispered

even the Vatican is closely following the progrees of this new brain child of our

engineer-scientists, lo One reflection of public attention was the number of articles,

reviewss, comments, and letters printed in the public preae during l93l-l93%, The
figures show dramatically the r i s e and fall of public interest. AB the movement was
catered in New York at this point, the New York Times Index ie relevant,
The Readers Guide to Periodical Literature indicates a aimilar trend, the ~llight
retardation in both the peak number and the decline simply reflecting the difference
between periodicals and newspaper writing,
 JULY SEPT. NOV. JAN. MAR. MAY JULY SEPT. NOV.
1932 1933

FIG. 4:I ARTICLES ON TECHNOCRACY FIG. 412 PERIODICAL ARTICLES ON TECHNOCRACY

NEW YORK TIMES 1932-1933 1932- 1933
 The volume of printed matter tells us nothing, of course, of the content of the

evaluation by various segments of the population. The table reproduced below is a

qualitative assessment taken from Henry E lsnerls doctoral thesis on the movement .I1
It is an attempt to show the changing response to the Technocrats in this period as
reflected in newspaper articles.

Table One
CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLES ON TECHNOCRACY
New York Times Detroit News
-
Date lrForlr "Agains t1 rlForlc llAgainstll
December 25-31 1 3 1 6
January 1-7 3 6 2 4
January 8-14 6 8 1 7
January 15-21 3 11 1 2
January 22-28 5 10 1 0
- - -
Total 18 38 6 19
Percent 32% 68% 24% 76%

Early response to the Technocrats was either relatively neutral or just slightly

dubious. The findings of the Technocrats were, after all, Scientific, and supported by
the prestige and reputation of a major university. Their charts reputedly had enabled
them to predict the Depression, a feat unduplicated by others concerned with such

affairs. The more the data and preliminary conclusions of the Energy Survey became
available to the public, through news releases and the speeches by Howard Scott, the
more questioning and critical became the response, Correspondingly, the statements
by Scott became increasingly adamant and prophetic. A New York Times editorial of
August 11th had suggested mildly that perhaps Scott went a little beyond the bounds of
his competence a s a scientist when he predicted the inevitable doom of the system!2
-- Technocracy relationship deteriorated steadily, until late in January of
The Times
1933 the Times printed an article titled, ltTechnocracy Cult Now Is On The Wane".

Howard Scott was now described as a Greenwich Village crackpot and the title,
fYechnologica1 c o n ~ u l t a n was
t ~ ~ now written with quotation marks. The whole affair

was dismissed a s lljust another economic fadw.13 The Timesf treatment of Techno-

cracy probably reflects the judgement of the majority of the population, Nevertheless,
to leave the description of Technocracy during these months of 1931-1932 at this,
would be to miss the phenomenal attention and debate that these ideas were given.

Robert Bendiner comments : "Technocracy caught the public fancy and was
for a year o r s o the biggest thing since mah- j ~ n ~ ' ' . ' F~.W. Allen notes the work at
Columbia and recollects :
Then the Living Age came out with an article about Technocracy; and then
abruptly in December, 1932 - the thing was everywhere: in the newspapers,
in the magazines, in sermons, in radio-actor's gags, in street corner
conversation. The amazed Scott, who a little while before had been jubilant
when a newspaper gave a few lines to Technocracy, was now pursued by
interviewers ready to hang upon his lightest word.I5
Publisher's Weekly devoted an article, December 31, 1932, to the increasing number
of publications available in Technocracy. The introduction noted: "Technocracy is
rapidly becoming the most discussed topic in America due to the timeliness of the
movement and the resultant publicity which it has received in newspapers and periodi-

cals throughout the country in the past month or so. f''6 It went on to say that Viking
P r e s s was reprinting several of Veblenls books that were relevant to Technocracy and
were in renewed demand. The Angelus Press on the West Coast reported selling

10,000 issues of a pamphlet on Technocracy in two days and a further 40,000 in two
weeks. The same press was soon to issue G. A. Laingls Toward Technocracy with an
introduction by Charles Beard of Columbia University. F a r r a r and Rinehart were
coming out with Wayne Parish's An Outline of Technocracy, while the John Day Co.

was printing Technocracy, An Interpretation, by Stuart Chase. On January 20, 1933,

the New York Times noted that an "authorizedf1book written by Howard Scott and
associates was released that day and entitled, Introduction to Technocracy. The book
was said to qualify and explain overstatements and misinterpretations previously made

Scrutiny of the Technocratst statements had been extensive and widespread at

this point and the evaluation was becoming increasingly negative. That much mis-

leading and inaccurate information had been written on what Technocracy was supposed
to be about, is clear. Demand for information was so high for several months that
anyone with even the remotest connection with the Columbia group (and a number who
could not even claim this), or anyone with an interest in the ideas, felt competent to
produce definitive statements and could r e s t assured of a market for his product. It
is also clear that the Columbia group was overwhelmed by the public response and

totally unable to cope with the demands for information from all over the continent.
 NOTES
1
Arthur Schlesinger J r . , for instance, gives the impression that Technocracy
was, to all intents and purposes, defunct by 1933 and survived solely a s a California
cult after that date. See: Arthur Schlesinger J r . , The Politics of Upheaval 1935-1936
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1966), p. 110.

The movement has been're-discovered' a t various points throughout its history

by different newspapers and journals. These 'discoveries1 have been treated by con-
temporary Technocrats with ironic amusement. An example of one of these occasions
was a piece in the New Yorker entitled, "Enemy of the Bourgeoisie" the tone of which
was bemused nostalgia at the curiosity of the continued existence of such a period
piece. See: "Enemy of the Bourgeoisie," New Yorker, XXIII, (June, 1947), p. 18.
3
Bottomore, p. 60.
4
Henry A . Porter, Roosevelt and Technocracy (Los Angeles: Wetzel Publiehing
Co. Ltd., 1932), p. 71.
5
Ibid., p. 72.
6
Joseph Kaye Faulkner, "The Emergence of Technocracy a s a Social Reform
"
Movement, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Economics, University
of Utah, 1965, p. 25.

New York Times, August 6, 1932, p. 16.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Porter, p. 71.

Elsner, p. 44.

New York Times, August 11,1932.

"Technocracy Cult Now Is On The Wane," New York Times, January 29, 1933,

Bendiner, p. 138.

Frederick Lewis Allen, Since Yesterday 1929-1939 ("Bantam Books"; New York:
Harper and Row, 1965), p. 71.

Publishers Weekly, CXXII, (December 31, 1932),p. 2393.

l7 New York Times, January 20, 1933, p. 15.
 CHAPTER FIVE

TECHNOCRACY 1932-1933, CRAZE OR MOVEMENT

The most common evaluation of the movement in this, the most public of its

three phases, is that it was a fad o r craze, not dissimilar to the intense, though

short-lived, interest of the public in such things a s mah-jong, miniature golf, the

charleston, pole sitting, and marathon dances. On February l s t , 1933, Bruce

Bliven, writing in the New Republic, summarized the past six to eight months:

The Technocracy craze, as such, is about over. A few more weeks, and it
bids fair to take its place with miniature golf, mah-jong, and the dodo. I
wonder what will come next?. . . Personally I hope we go back to miniature
golf; I hadn't quite finished with it when they whisked i t away.'

One further note from this article is interesting. In describing the vast range of

variously uninformed and contradictory statements about Technocracy, Bliven says:

A bright young newspaper man in Los Angeles, being three thousand miles
away and therefore able t o dodge Howard Scott's wrath, has appeared in a
. .
talking motion picture explaining the subject. . and further. . Books on
Technocracy have been issued from the presses at the rate of one a day, or
on busy days, two, nearly all of them accompanied by the usual official
repudiation by Mr. Scott.

From Scott's point of view, events were clearly out of hand, public interest was

clearly 'too much and too fast', and from the perspective of any true Technocrat,

"too much opinion and not enough facts".

The original Energy Survey at Columbia had entertained far more limited and

orderly goals, more in line with Veblenrs prescription of "an extensive campaign of

inquiry and publicity such as will bring the underlying population to a reasonable

understanding of what it is all about^.^ The Energy Survey had, in fact, been quite

consciously along the lines of the former Technical Alliance. Bassett Jones and

Frederick Ackerman had returned and joined with Scott and a new recruit, M. King

Hubbert (a geophysicist). On the basis of some preliminary work they were able to

interest W. Rautenstrauch of Columbia, a s well as the Architect's Emergency Relief

Committee, which provided 20-30 unemployed draftsmen. In April of 1930 the Survey

was installed at ~ o l u m b i a . ~
 Up to this point the Energy Survey was, like the Technical Alliance and the

New Machine before it, primarily a professional group. It was not, and was never

meant to be, I'a soviet of technicians". It was, by intent at least, restricted to a

highly skilled vprofessionall' category of the labour force. It is also not totally by

chance that Scott's first public address on the 'findings' of the Energy Survey was to

a professional group, the American Statistical Association. 5 Given the social con-

ditions in which the Technical Alliance had flourished briefly, the Survey might well

have become a somewhat more extensive version of the Alliance, perhaps in the form

of an industrial studies institute affiliated with ~ o l u m b i a . ~

This, however, was 1933

and neither the times nor the prophetic, almost messianic style of Howard Scott were

conducive to cautious "scholarly enterprise". As we have already seen, the public

response was avid, and Technocracy was removed forcibly and forever from the

groves of academe.

Two factors a r e of fundamental importance in understanding the diverse, and

often contradictory, public statements of the Technocrats during this period. The

f i r s t is that the Technocrats were totally unprepared for the massive public response

to their statements. The previous Technocratic organization, the Technical Alliance,

had, after all, stimulated no interest from the public at all, and while the social

conditions were considerably different now, the ideas had changed little and there was

no way for the Technocrats to anticipate the furor they were to create. Also relevant

here was their professional orientation. It was primarily, though not solely, the

Technicians whom they were addressing. The second important factor is a partial

qualification of this last observation. Throughout this period (and this is true of the

subsequent movement as well) there is a persistent ambiguity of both goals and means.

This is particularly true of this early phase of the movement, when considerable con-

fusion existed (among Technocrats a s well a s on the part of the public) a s to what the

Technocrats1 goals were. For some, a new form of government was implied, to

others only minor economic reorganization, and there were those of whom it was

science fiction 'come to life'. Variation on the means of obtaining the goals of
Technocracy (however conceived) was even greater. In part this was undoubtedly a

consequence of the unanticipated and widespread public response, much of which

anticipated the imminent formation of a Technocratic form of government. Scott and

his associates, however, seemed either unable or unwilling to provide intelligible

leadership on the classic question of "what is to be done".

AMBIGUITY AND INEVITABILITY -- THE EMERGENCE OF MlLLENNlALlSM

On September 7th of 1932, The Nation printed the following quote from a

Technocrat's report:

Our charts prove with startling vividness that the impact of technology on the
price system i s shattering the social structure. The production curve oscil-
lates to the breaking point. When the crisis comes, no palliatives of a
political nature will be adequate, because the problem is not political, but
technical. Orators may appeal to and sway manpower, but they are impotent
when it comes to handling energy. Neither socialism, communism, nor
fascism is equipped to do this job in a society as highly technical as America
today.

The editors felt that "Technocracy's report is the first step toward a genuine
8
revolutionary philosophy for America". The analysis and predictions were drama-

tic and clear. The means of solving the problems were not. The inevitability of

collapse had been even more clearly stated in a report on the Energy Survey, printed

by the New York Times: "Under the present industrial system, unemployment will

continue to increase until a maximum point is reached, which will bring about the

collapse of the system. l l 9 In December, 1932, George Soule, noting the lack of pro-

gram for achieving changes, observed: "Inevitability of change is particularly good,

since it means we don't have to worry about effecting the change".10 Nevertheless,

the public (and some Technocrats) were still curious about the role that the Techno-

crats saw themselves playing in the coming changes. In the 'vacuum' created by the

limited (or contradictory) comments by the Technocrats on both goals and means, the

linking of Veblen's The Endneers and The Price System with Technocracy, combined

with the anti-politics stance of the organization, as well as the connotations of the very

name itself, were conducive to a public image of Technocracy as a dictatorship of

engineers.
 By January of 1933, the questioning and criticism were apparently severe

enough to induce Scott to give out a signed interview on the matter. The gist of the

statement was ''that the organization is merely a voluntary research agency which is

not staffed to answer questions"." The word, Technocracy, means only, "govern-

ance by science - social control through the power of technique and as such has no
connotations of dictatorship by the technicians or a soviet of the engineer".12 He did

add, however, that: "The engineer and the technologist of today are the only functional

group in our present social structure possessing both the knowledge and the capacity

to direct this progression [into a new era] in a sane and orderly fashion1'." Allen

Raymond later reported in his book:

In conversations held with reporters in the homes of the Technocrats, Scott

in a more expansive mood had hinted at methods of transition from the
present control over society by men whom he labels ignoramuses. The
mechanics of revolution must not now be disclosed lest its strategy be
betrayed prematurely to an inevitable foe."

The editors were not lax in pointing out that all of this somehow begged the question

of both "how it is to be done1?and further, how were the decisions on ought1 and

'whethery to be made.

The January 1933 issue of Harper's Magazine contained a major article by the

Technocrats that was "prepared under the supervision of HOWARD SCOTT, Director

of the Energy Survey of North ~ m e r i c a ~ ' . The

' ~ opening paragraph was an excellent

example of the millennia1 tone of the Technocrats at this time.

A crisis in the history of American civilization is at hand. The nation stands

at the threshold of what is simultaneously opportunity and disaster. The
opportunity is one for social benefit, the disaster is the failure of the price
system, and neither opportunity nor disaster may be escaped. The mills of
the gods have ground almost their allotted time, and they have ground
exceedingly fine .I6

The article reiterated the by now familiar Technocratic arguments and examples, and

concluded, "that is the problem before the people. It can be done. Are we going to

set about it before it is too late? l' l 7

It was still far from clear, however, just what one was to set about doing or

how. The apogee of this phase of the movement was to come on the 13th of January,
1933, with Scott's Hotel Pierre Address. The continent-wide furor was at its most

intense, and commentators both pro and con most adament in their positions. Howard

Scott, the prophet of doom and the spokesman for a new e r a of unprecedented abun-

dance, was to speak to a banquet audience of "capitalists, bankers, industrialists,

economists and artists".18 A nation-wide radio hookup had been arranged and was

reported to be the most extensive ever afforded a speaker in America. 19 This was

Scott's opportunity to respond to the critics, clarify the issues, and set the new

directions. By all accounts the speech was a disaster. Scott started by saying that:

At the outset Technocracy wishes it to be understood that all this publicity has
broken upon it like nothing else that has happened to any similar organization
in the history of man. Months ago we were unknown, working quietly[?] as a
non-profit research organization. . .20

He went on to say that misunderstandings about Technocracy were primarily due to

attacks and sensationalism in the press, and that: "these attacks, however beneficial

to the newspaper and publishing interests, have added nothing to a proper under-

standing of our The closing statement on the matter of program and tactics,

was the important one. It was the clearest disavowal of any political program yet

made by the Technocrats.

Technocracy has no theory of the assumption of power; it is not concerned with

going any place. It merely observes the present direction of social forces,
striving to obtain a clear and unified picture of what is happening on this con-
tinent. What is to come is for the future to tell. We wish everybody a happy
landing, and close with the affirmation that Technocracy will stand its ground.
For the rest, we will leave it to tomorrow.22

Some thirty years later, Henry Elsner Jr. interviewed Charles Bonner, a

leader of one of the later branches of the movement, on his evaluation of the speech.

Bonner "emphatically recalls it a s the crisis point of the early Technocratic move-

ment. It was not s o much what Scott said, as his inept delivery that made the whole

thing a n t i c l i m a ~ t i c ~ An
'.~~
article by Allen Gordon gives a more detailed picture.

The beginning of the act that night was tense; there was an expectent hush as
the leading figure in the greatest economic drama of modern times took the
stage. He began to speak haltingly; he groped for words; he sneered at times;
he appeared absolutely inarticulate. . . Scott spoke of ergs and energy certi-
ficates and capitalistic economics.. . all that came over t o the hearers was a
jumble of unfinished and half-baked sentences. It was all over?'
Technocracy Inc. was to reprint this address continually throughout the years, with

the claim that the banquet was somehow an attempt to co-opt the movement, and that

Scott "knew that one radio broadcast would not make a social movement and that one

banquet of funded wealth would not build a continental organization. He threw the

bribe Scott maintained that for some reason he never wanted to make the

speech in the first place; that he got out of a sick bed to do so; that it was the first

public address he had ever made; 26 and some time later, that prior to the address he

had been drugged.27 In any case, Scott delivered a "ranting diatribe which dismayed

the public and disrupted the Technocratic r n ~ v e m e n t ~ ~ . ~ ~

It soon became apparent that the tide had most definitely turned. The press

became increasingly critical and mocking, and internal schisms, heretofore latent,

became serious. To quote the Technocrats, "the Price System turned on Technocracy

with bitterness and ridicule". 29

On January 18th, Dr. Butler, president of Columbia, "disavowed any academic

connection between the university and ~ e c h n o c r a c ~ "and

, ~ ~emphasized that Columbia

merely provided space for them to work a s they had "nowhere else to On

January 24, 1933, the front page of the N. Y. Times carried a report of a split a t

Columbia, headed "Scott Is Ousted From Technocracy By Split In Group1'. It was

reported that four of the most important members of the Survey, Rautenstrauch,

Henderson, Ackerman, and Jones, had resigned, and that while the work would be

carried on at Columbia on a "scholarly basis", Scott would no longer be involved.32

The formal statement by those resigning made it clear that Scottls behaviour

was at the root of the issue. "The misunderstanding and confusion concerning the

aims and objects of Technocracy have caused us much concern". . . and further. . .
"We a r e not in accord with some of the statements expressed by M r . Howard Scott. 1f33

The following day %cott said he accepted the resignations of his former associates

and announced the activities would be carried on outside the university with funds he

expected to get from a public appeal. l f 3 1 Scott1s sang-froid was impressive; never-

theless, his final bridge back into the fringes of the academic would had been burned,
and his major source of 'scientificT legitimacy lost. His credibility as the

scientific prophet of inevitable doom and subsequent unprecedented abundance,

seemed badly if not totally undermined.

We noted at the start of this chapter that Technocracy was, in this period,

commonly described as a craze and consequently grouped with such phenomena a s the

public's intense and transitory adoption of miniature golf, the charleston, and 'Monopoly'.

For purposes of satire such a categorization has obvious utility; however, it

seems less valuable given a more analytic purpose. The prime difficulty is that

while the form of the craze and the Technocracy 'affairf a r e similar (intense

and transitory interest), their content differs radically. That is to say, although the

distinctions between such things a s fads, crazes, and panics a r e not altogether clear,

there is commonly an implication of frivolity or superficiality with regard to the con-

tent of the craze. At least one connotation of the craze is, that a normally inconsequen-

tial matter is temporarily elevated to a position of prime importance in peoples1

lives. The word "temporarilylThighlights a second contrast between a craze and

Technocracy. In the case of the craze there is, at least implicitly, a recognition by

participants throughout its brief existence that the phenomenon is to be of short dura-

tion. Participants in this early phase of Technocracy never considered either its

subject matter to be intrinsically inconsequential, nor its existence to be transitory.

As at least some of the more usual connotations of the craze label seem to be mis-

leading in the case of Technocracy, a somewhat different formulation seems to be

required.

During this period the central focus of the Technocracy movement was on

Howard Scott and the Energy Survey, but there were also a large number of diverse

and unco-ordinated Technocratic groups across the entire continent. At this point

Technocracy was just slightly more organized (by reason of its focus on Scott and

the Energy Survey) than those movements defined by Herbert Blumer as General

Movements : that is, movements with a developing s e t of ideas and a literature, but

little or no organizational form. The literature of such movements is usually "as

varied and ill defined as is the movement itself".35 Blumerls description of the

leaders of such movements seems directly applicable to Howard Scott. He says,

". . .the "leaderstf of a general social movement play an important part - not in the
sense of exercising directive control over the movement, but in the sense of being

pace-makers. Such leaders a r e likely to be 'voices in the wilderness', pioneers

without any solid following, and frequently not very clear about their own goals. 1136

In the case of Technocracy, the combination of Howard Scott's messianic style, and
the unanticipated, intense public response to the ideas, seems to have raised the

movement to a somewhat higher 'pitchf than that envisioned by Blumer a s usual with

general movements. This intensity of interest and activity is not at all unusual,

however, in the early stages of millennia1 movements, the elements of which (as

discussed in Chapter One) we have seen emerging in this 1932-1933 period.

Finally, the craze does not usually become a social movement, while it is

quite common that the general movement becomes the base out of which a more

specific social movement emerges. As Blumer notes, a specific movement is often

a lfcrystalization of much of the maturation of dissatisfaction, hope, and desire

awakened by the general social movement. . .ff37 Such was the case with Technocracy,

which went on to become a highly organized movement of tenacious longevity.

The next chapter is concerned with this process of becoming an organized

movement with a relatively unified ideology.

 NOTES
-,
I
Bruce Bliven, l1Technocracy and Communism, l' The New Republic, m I I I ,
(February, 1933), p. 315.
2
Ibid.
3
Veblen, p. 130.
4
Elsner, p. 28.
5
Ibid., p. 29.
6
Something of this nature did in fact happen when Scott and his associates split
with Columbia in January of 1933, and it was announced that the Department of Industrial
Engineering would henceforth carry on the work, "as a scholarly enterprise of the
university which up to this time had merely been host to the Technocracy group.ll See
New York Times, January 24, 1933, p. 1.
7
'?Toward a New System, l1 The Nation, CXXXV, (September 7 , 1932), p. 205.
8
Ibid.
9
New York Times, August 6, 1932, p. 13.
lo
George Soule, llTechnocracy, Good Medicine o r a Bedtime Story?ll The New
Republic, LXXIII, (December 28, l932), p. 178.

TheNewRepublic,January4,1933,p.199.

l2 Ibid.

l3 Ibid.
l4
Allen Raymond, What is Technocracy? (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Inc., 1933), p. 97.
l5
llTechnology Smashes The Price System, l1 Harpers Magazine, C W I ,
(January, 1933), pp. 129-142.

l6 Ibid.

l7 Ibid., p. 142.
l8 New York Times, January 14, 1933, p. 1.
l9 Norman F. Benson, "The Origins And Impact Of An American Radicalism;
A History Of Technocracy, Inc., l1 Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of
Education, Ball State University, 1965, p. 40.
20 "The Hotel Pierre Address, l' The Northwest Technocrat, XVIlI, No. 175,
(April, 1954), p. 1.

Ibid.

22 Ibid.,p.16.

23 Elsner, p. 52.
24
Allen Gordon, "Scott, the Technocrat, Is Sold Out !" , Mac Fadden Weekly,
November 24, 1934, p. 4, a s quoted in Elsner, p. 51.
25
"No Platinum Handcuffs !", Technocracy Digest, Special Supplement, 1949,
p. 15.

26 Elsner,pp.51-52.

27 Benson, p. 42f.

28 Ibid.,p.41.
29 "The Hotel Pierre Address", The Northwest Technocrat (April, l954), p. 1.
30
New York Times, January 18, 1933, p. 1.

31 Ibid.
32
New York Times, January 24, 1933, p. 1.

33 Ibid.
34
New York Times, January 29, 1933, p. 3.
35
Herbert Blumer, "Social Movements," Principles Of Sociology, ed. Alfred
Mc Lung Lee (New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., l95l), p. 201.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid., p. 202.
 CHAPTER SIX

TECHNOCRACY 1933-1935: THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ORGANIZED MOVEMENT

The emergence of Technocracy Inc. a s THE Technocracy movement out of the

numerous heterogeneous Technocratic groups that existed in early 1933, is important

to our understanding of this movement inasmuch as the events of this period had de-

finite consequences for the future character of the movement.

A fundamental conflict developed in this period over the broad issue of what

role the movement should play in effecting social change. We have already noted the

ambiguity in the General Movement period on this issue, with positions wavering back

and forth between an active political stance and the more passive millennia1 concept

of the inevitability of change unassisted by Technocracy. This was, in various forms,

to be the central conflict within the movement for many years, and was to be both the

basis of distinction between the two main factions of the movement that developed in

1933-1934 (Technocracy Inc. and the Continental Committee on Technocracy), and the

central issue of a later major schism within Technocracy Inc. The details of the

early development of the two major conflicting Technocracy groups a r e significant,

therefore, a s the first elaboration of the many facets of this issue.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO FACTIONS

Our estimate of the number of Technocratic groups in existence at this time

(January 1933) must necessarily remain somewhat incomplete because of the diffuse

and autonomous nature of their relationship to each other and the relatively short life

span of many of these groups. The larger, more enduring groups a r e reasonably

well documented. One of the most important (the Continental Committee on Techno-

cracy) was originally an outgrowth of Scott's Energy Survey. The group had been

organized to respond to the massive public demand for information, and to enable

Scott and the Energy Survey to proceed uninterrupted in their research. Members

included a number of prominent persons in various public media. ". . .Richard Walsh,
founder of the John Day Press; James Waterman wise, editor of Opinion; Quincy
Howe, editor of The Living Age and later a well known radio commentator; John

-
Franklin Carter of Time.. . Harold Loeb and Felix F r a s e r , later to be prominent in

the Committee, joined several months after it had been organized. "' While the

Committee was initially formed to further public relations for Technocracy, we should

note that in addition, its members considered themselves the nucleus of Technocracy's

potential political a ~ t i v i t i e s . ~
Immediately following the announcement of the split

at Columbia, however, an announcement was given out by the temporary chairman of

the Committee, former Assemblyman Langdon W. Post, that the Committee would

temporarily suspend its activities . 3 Scott, responding to questioning reporters about

future relations with the Continental Committee, replied, "Technocracy does not wish

to be associated with any political enterprise. Read what you want into that. "4

Members had, by this time, a number of reservations about Scott and the

ambiguity of his intentions in both the long and the short run, and a meeting was

arranged at which representatives of the various local Technocracy factions were

present. These included members of the Continental Committee, participants in the

Columbia group, and Scott with a friend whom he was later to marry, Eleanor Steele.

The following quote is Charles Bonnerls report of the most contentious issue of the

discussion. Apparently, someone asked Scott i f the movement was to be run in a

democratic fashion. "Scott did not reply. But Eleanor Steele answered for him.

'Of course it will be democratic - - but Howard should always have the power of veto.

Scott said nothing. That decided it s o far as we were concerned. " The members of

the Committee then decided to initiate a movement of their own, which would eliminate

what they considered to be the defects of Scott's Technocracy. In their words:

Some of us contended that behind the fad, the fantastic figures, and the pseudo-
scientific jargon, was a sound idea. And that civilization itself might very
well depend on getting this fundamental idea accepted, on proving to the people
that the days of material scarcity would be over as soon a s they willed it. We
argued that the Continental Committee instead of being through, had, on the
contrary, not yet begun its real work.6

As of the end of January, 1933, there were two main Technocratic groups

(Continental Committee and Technocracy Inc. ), each attempting to forge a movement

by consolidating the various groups across the country. The Continental Committee

tended toward an active political reformism. A leading member, Harold Loeb, later

wrote ". . . I saw no necessity for transforming our system of government. I argued

that a department of the government subordinate to the political authorities, demo-

cratically elected, should be entrusted with the job. lf7 Technocracy Inc. developed

along somewhat different lines. Loeb felt that the new society of abundance could be

achieved, "by convincing enough people it was to their advantage. Technocracy Inc.

considered such a tactic ineffective. It believed in recruiting a small group of trained

technicians who would prepare to take over the switchboards when the price system

collapsed.

We have already seen some traces of millennialism in Scott's conceptions, and

these were to become even more pronounced at this branch of the movement developed.

In this early period, as Loeb's comments indicate, it was clearly a very passive

millennialism with regard to the movement's role in effecting changes. At later

stages in the movement there was to be considerable internal conflict over the issue

of relatively passive versus more active roles for the movement in social affairs.

While the Continental Committee and Technocracy Inc. became, in 1933-1934, the

main contenders for the leadership of the Technocracy movement, it is important not

to oversimplify the situation by failing to note the vast numbers of Technocratic groups

across the North American continent, each with its own ideological, tactical, and

organizational variants on the common Technocratic theme. It was these diverse

groups that the two main factions had somehow to try to weld together into a unified

and relatively homogeneous movement.

The west coast of the continent seems to have been the most receptive to all

variants of Technocratic ideas. In Los Angeles alone there were the Technocracy

Lecture Bureau, the Technocracy Society, the American Society of Technocracy, and
9
the Los Angeles School of Technocracy. In Denver, Colorado, there were the

American Technocratic League and in Chicago, the Technocratic Party and the All

American Technological ~ o c i e t ~ . ' ' In Vancouver, as early as December of 1932,

 45

Robert Cromie, owner and publisher of the Vancouver Sun, was giving Technocracy

front page coverage and describing it in t e r m s almost a s favourable a s those of

Howard Scott. l1

In discussing this period in some detail, Henry Elsner, Jr. reports six dif-

ferent Technocratic journals published in various centers,12 which does not include

the various newspaper and periodical 'specials' or the numerous pamphlets that

appeared. Howard Scott had apparently survived his discouraging debut a s a public

speaker at the Hotel P i e r r e , a s it was reported that "for 16 days continuously he

spoke no less than three times a day"; l3 but his successes in recruitment were

apparently quite limited. Financially he was clearly a failure. On March 5, the New
York Times reported that he was bankrupt. He and his wife shared a friend's apart-

ment and he testified that his basic source of support was the contributions of various

friends. He also told the court that his numerous lectures seldom paid more than his

expenses. When questioned about Technocracy he said that incorporation papers were

being prepared, but refused to indicate the number of members in the organization."

In May, Technocracy Inc. issued an extensive statement intended to correct

"misconceptions" a s well a s t o a s s e r t its position as THE Technocracy movement.

This statement began:

Sir: In order to avoid further misunderstandings of its aims, Technocracy

now wishes to make a declaration of policy.of such a nature that it cannot be
misconstrued o r falsified.15

The r e s t of the article was a concise summary of previous statements. The findings

of Technocracy Inc. indicated, they reported:

. . . an imminent and progressive social instability under price-system

operation, with corresponding disorder, that will threaten large portions of
the people with decreasing purchasing power, and, consequently, increasing
hardship and deprivation.16

The next sentence did nothing to avoid misunderstandings, particularly in view of their

previous, oft represented, statements that Technocracy Inc. had '?no assumption of

power theory", and never would have. The statement:

. . . in order to avoid the consequences of such a debacle it is imperative to

organize a disciplined body which will r e s i s t the forces of disruption and
 ensure the free flow of food and other necessities to the population at large
during the time of crisis and afterward in the period of readjustment."

could clearly be construed to advocate rather definite powers to some unspecified

"disciplined body", presumably Scott and associates. Readers were further assured

that,

Technocracy stands ready with a plan to salvage American civilization, i f and

when democracy as now functioning can no longer cope with the inherent dis-
ruptive forces. l8

On the 22nd of May the Continental Committee countered with a press release

of their own that announced that their membership stood at 250,000, which included

six regional divisions and "more than seventy local units".19 The release stressed

the Committee's lack of connection with Scott, but noted a "working contact, though no

official c o n n e ~ t i o n " , ~with

~ the Columbia group. The Committee's program at this

stage was no clearer than Scott's with reference to tactics. In part it said:

That the people legally acquire the means of production and distribution and
the natural resources of the continent; that the trained technicians, in all
fields, be drafted to integrate and modernize the equipment, operate the
machinery and administer the resources of the continent for the equal benefit
of all, and that a technologically sound social mechanism be established, under
which every adult capable of service shall contribute his service to the end that
by such co-operative industry the individual shall vastly increase the standard
of his living and acquire a leisure in which to pursue his own interests in a way
hitherto possible only to the privileged few.2'

Reference was made in this report to an event that was to be the next important crisis

point in the Technocracy movement. "The committee, " it said, 'I is co-operating

with the All American Technological Society in the first Congress of Technicians to be

held in Chicago beginning June 25. 7122 The convention was in part a result of the rather

extensive consolidation of various Technocratic groups, effected by the Continental

Committee. While the claim of 250,000 members was clearly inflated,23 these

organizational activities were nevertheless highly successful. Included were the Los

Angeles American Council of Technocracy (including all of the above-mentioned Los

I
Angeles groups), the American Technocratic League of Denver, and according to now

executive director Harold Loeb, "practically all other In negotiating a

I possible merger with Chicago's A. A. T . S. (All American Technological Society) this

 47

group's "projected 1933 Nstional Technological Congress was broadened in scope to

be a 'Continental Convention on Technocracyf, to be held during the Chicago World's

Fair, June 27-30thl~.~'

While it was the Continental Committee and Chicago1s A . A. T. S. that initiated

the conference, Technocracy Inc. was invited, as were approximately 20 other groups.

Not insensitive to the possibility of a Technocracy revival, Howard Scott reportedly

accepted his invitation, by wire, immediately, and within a short time was well on

the way to dominating the organizational planning. In view of the open conflict between

Scott and the Continental Committee, it is difficult to see how he managed it; yet by

the time June 27th arrived, he had 'appointedf two of Technocracy Inc. 's members to

the Agenda Committee (one day after having been invited), issued invitations to

speakers (without conferring with original sponsors), been influential in control of

both topics and speakers, achieved the recognition of Technocracy Inc. as one of the

three official sponsors of the conference, and arranged that all stationery be on

Technocracy Inc. grey paper and stamped with the Technocracy Inc. symbol, the

Monad. 26

A number of prestigious public figures were scheduled to speak, and the stage

was set for the Technocracy revival and the laying of the groundwork of an extensive

and unified Technocracy movement.

What might have been the outcome of this conference was to become a matter

of immaterial speculation, as Howard Scott's flair for headlines, combined with the

perhaps exaggerated reporting of Time, produced an article in Time entitled:

"Bayonets for ~ e c h n o c r a t s ~ ~The

. ~ ' events of the conference a r e unclear, as various

reports a r e contradictory, but it is obvious that the conflicts centered around Scott

and the issue of tactics and program, which as noted previously, had been the areas
l.

of most ambiguity and sensitivity. Scott is reported by Time as having said: "Our

fight is to abolish the price system. Bayonets will line up those who wilfully refuse

to join the movement. 112* A. A. T. S. ' S General Westervelt apparently found Scott a

little too radical and was "obliged" to miss the final banquet. Scott did not consider
the loss of the All American Technological Society too serious as they were, he said,

"a pretty reactionary Scott did deny, however, that he had ever advocated

the use of force.30

Harold Loeb (Continental Committee) felt the result of the conference was that

in terms of future recruitment: "Technocracy Inc., Scott's personal organization,

recruited those individuals who favoured a conspiracy of picked men in key positions

who would wait around to seize power by force when the economy collapsed. All the

others, the dreamers, the utopians, the anarchists, and the left-wing liberals joined

up with the Continental Committee. " 3'

This meeting did define more clearly the two main branches of the movement,

and it appears that the various other groupings either merged with the Continental

Committee or Technocracy Inc., or simply faded out of existence.

Up to this point the Continental Committee had made the most organizational

gains and was to become both less radical and correspondingly more liable to co-

optation into New Deal programs than Technocracy Inc. It is the increasing polariza-

tion between these two factions that forms the next important stage in the developmental

process of the Technocracy movement. In order to comprehend best these contrasts,

and the consequences of the conflicts between the two organizations a s well a s inter-

nally specific to each, it is important to set them in some preliminary theoretical

context.

The classical dialectic: reform - revolution is normally most commonly and

clearly understood with reference to large-scale nationalist and/or socialist peasant/

worker movements. I argue, however, that the label revolutionary may conceivably

be appropriate to movements of more limited range (i. e. institutionally specific) in

the sense that such movements do advocate fundamental restructuring of institution-

alized social relations. Furthermore, it is important to stress that reform -

revolution is not only a typological description, but in fact a central focus of a dialec-

tic process generating characteristic contradictions. While it is arguable to what

extent reform movements generate tendencies toward revolution, it is clear that

revolutionary movements continually must deal with internal tendencies towards re-

formism. The result is the growth of factions and schisms, and frequently the

polarization of the factions relative to each other, each faction clarifying its own

position through this conflicting interaction. The opposing faction becomes then a

negative reference group. This process is important, not simply as an exercise in

the polemics of conflict and mutual accusation and recrimination, but more funda-

mentally a s a process of Becoming, o r achieving self-identity, analogous to individ-

uals' becoming social through interaction with significant others. The above seems,

at least, one reasonable way of interpreting the relations between the Continental

Committee and Technocracy Inc. in the 1933-1934 period,

This way of perceiving movement process is not uncommon with reference to

the kind of large-scale political movements noted above (though the theoretical

analysis of it is limited). It is less commonly utilized, however, with reference to

the whole range of less extensive movements. The usage of the term revolutionary

is, by way of example, normally limited to references to national revolutions.

Technocracy has never become a politically relevent national revolutionary force.

Nevertheless we would argue that it cannot be properly understood a s other than a

revolutionary movement, in that it advocated fundamental and complete restructuring

of all major societal institutions.

The schism between Scott and Columbia, and the early split from the Contin-

ental Committee a r e difficult to analyze in terms of movement dynamics inasmuch a s

no organized coherent movement in fact existed at this stage. By the time of the

Technocracy Convention a t the Hotel Morrison, a movement with various conflicting

groups clearly did exist. Following the conference, the two main factions, Scott's

Technocracy Inc. and the Continental Committee, developed along clearly and con-

sciously different paths. Increasingly these two groups tended to define themselves

both publicly and to their own memberships by way of contrast to the faction. The

'other' faction becomes a negative reference group.

The distinction between reform and revolutionary movements (or factions of

movements) has to do with the kinds of changes sought. With reference to the Tech-

nocracy movement, it is also clearly important to distinguish between differing con-

ceptions of how these changes a r e to come about, or more specifically, the movementvs

definition of its role in effecting changes. The debate within the Technocracy move-

ment has consistently been between relatively more active versus more passive

positions. We can construct, then, a reasonably accurate representation of the

internal tendencies of this movement in a four-fold typology, which should serve to

highlight characteristic differences within the context of this specific movement.

Revolutionary - Active Reform - Active

Revolutionary - Passive Reform - Passive

The Continental Committee had come into existence a s a conscious reform

of Scott's variant of Technocracy, primarily in terms of a less revolutionary set of

goals (i.e. a less fundamental re-structuring of the existing social structure). In

addition, their critique of the existing society (and specific groups) became more

moderate than Scott's, in an attempt to broaden the social base of their movement.

Technocracy Inc. was, by contrast, more revolutionary, though in later stages it was

to fluctuate between active and passive roles.

The contrasts between the two main Technocratic groups became increasingly

evident as each developed and clarified its ideology and produced several major pieces

of literature to carry its image. The Continental Committee had Harold Loebls pre-

viously published Life In A Technocracy, which was somewhat reminiscent of Edward

Bellamyvs Looking Backward. Howard Scott noted that the manuscript had been turned

down by three publishers before it was finally printed, the reason being, by his account,

that Technocracy "refused to approve the manuscript in any way, shape or f ~ r m ~ ~ , ~ '

and furthermore the "kindest thing we can say i s that Bellamy did far, far better many

years ago".33 The Committee's other major piece was the Plan of Plenty, written by

Loeb and Felix Fraser, following the Committee's "First Continental Conference",

July, 1933.34 This document displayed some of the growing contrasts between the
Continental Committee and Technocracy Inc. Below is one summary of the paper.

It is a plan to end the Depression and ensure maximum distribution of

technologically produced abundance. It is not a blue print for the total
reconstruction of society: the political institutional structure is not men-
tioned nor is a general theory of social evolution and change.35

The llPlanfTwas in essence a set of relatively extensive reforms. Technocracy

Inc. produced Science Versus Chaos 36 by Howard Scott, which was the text of his con-

cluding speech at the ill-fated Continental Convention on Technocracy. This pamphlet

was distributed by Scott on his continent-wide tour in 1934 and has since gone through

six printings. It is still a standard piece of Technocracy Inc. literature. Technocracy

Inc. also produced (in 1934) the Technocracy Study ~ u i d e , ~initially

' in mimeograph

form and later in a hardcover volume, which has also been reprinted a number of

times. This text was to serve as the basic resource for Technocracy Study groups,

of which more will be said later.

A third important piece of literature for this group was: Technocracy: Some

Questions Answered (1934). This publication was the 'official party lineT on questions

and/or criticisms directed at Technocracy advocates. A s such it served both the

potential recruit and the inadequately informed member faced with the task of handl-

ing difficult questions. The foreword to the document stated: "It is based wholly

upon questions asked by audiences attending official lectures on the subjectf1.38 The

pamphlet was essentially a dictionary of "correct1' answers to queries and criticism.

The introduction to the pamphlet indicated that its purpose was solely to inform the

public about various aspects of Technocracy that had commonly given rise to confu-

sion, both inadvertently and through the proliferation of 'unofficialT writings.

Nevertheless, the significance for members should not be ignored and will be dis-

cussed in some detail when we examine in depth the Technocracy movement in

Vancouver. The publication is of some importance for the light it sheds on the

movement in this 1933-1935 period. "Technocracy Inc. I T readers were told:

.
. . is the organization which is developed under the leadership of
Howard Scott. to on the facts and to set up in America
as speedily as gossib the new order of society which science
designates as the most to the present inadequate price
Further on in the pamphlet we find: "It is, of course, our hope to unite for concerted

action the technical man of the entire continental area. l t 4 0 If this was solely a research

and education organization (as it claimed whenever questions were asked as to how

Technocracy was to come about), it had a curiously activist way of describing itself.

The millennia1 attributes of inevitability, combined with the perception of time a s "a

final futuret1were also e ~ i d e n t . ~ 'Time is seen as a linear, perhaps evolutionary

process culminating in the present, which is the final threshold to a glorious new era.

On page 7 we find: I1Theprice system is crashing of its own inherent contradictions.

We are at the end of an e r a . 114'

The relationship of Technocracy Inc. to the New Deal was dealt with under the

question: "Do any members of Technocracy Inc. act as advisors to the present Admin-

i ~ t r a t i o n l ' ? ~The
~ answer rejected any attempts at political co-optation, but indicated

that perhaps a purely research role would be acceptable. The writers claimed to

have been approached by an emissary of the President but that: "The way in which the

approach was made carried with it implications of a political nature, and Technocracy

declined to become involved. l144 Reference was also made to the Continental Committee

as a former "auxiliary organization of laymen" of Technocracy Inc. that had been

'ldropped largely because of its attempts to involve Technocracy politically with the

National ~ d m i n i s t r a t i o n " . ~The

~ final question and answer in the document furthered

the impression of an elite conspiracy. The question read: "How do the Technocrats

propose to come into power?" The response is printed in full. All italics, however,

have been added by this writer.

It is the policy of the leaders of T~chnocracynot to discuss tactics, because it

is impossible to say definitely just exactly what would be done in a situation
that is still some distance in the future and in which so much would depend upon
the attitude and actions of others. All we can say is that, a s scientifically
trained men and women, we would weigh the facts and act upon them a s intelli-
gently as possible when the time comes. For the present, we know that we
must educate and organize, not to foment a revolution, but to be prepared to
keep our industrial mechanism operating when the price system can no longer
function. This must be done in two ways: first, by building up a closely knit
organization of technicfilly trained men and women in strategic positions in
industry; secondly, by dewloping a "new climate of opinion1' among the intelli-
gent minority to support the f i r s t group when the crisis comes. On thing is
-
certain: given a strong sentiment on the part of this sufficiently large minority
 in favor of having those men and women operate our functional sequences who
are capable of doing so, and, a s Howard Scott says significantly, "Even the
supreme court knows how to bow to force majeure when it becomes

Technocracy Inc . ' s evaluation of the Continental Committee, while relatively

clear in this public document, was defined more forcefully in a paper on the subject

circulated only to members. The rival organization was seen as not only co-opted,

but also as manipulated by Establishment forces in an effort to hinder the 'real'

Technocracy movement. The statement reads in part: "The nationalized Tammany

political machine of the Roosevelt - Farley Administration not only attempted to dis-

rupt the original Technocracy, but sponsored and promoted the spurious 'right wing

deviation' known as the Continental ~ o m m i t t e e " . ~Further

~ on in the same paper we

find: "The Continental Committee was the vehicle by which the nationalized Tammany

political machine was going to render Technocracy harmless and innocuous to the

present price stern^'.^* The document includes a detailed description of a New

Deal project that the Continental Committee was deeply involved in, called the

"National Survey of Potential Product Capacity", and lists the weekly government

salaries of the Committee's members, the highest of which was Harold Loebls a s

director, $45 per week. Scott comments that: "We a r e surprised, . . .to find that
even the Roosevelt - Farley machine values our erstwhile competitors s o cheaply"f19

While this project was perhaps no s o pernicious a s claimed by Scott, it is

indicative of the differences of the two factions. The project had, in fact, been con-

ceived by Loeb and the Committee and they had solicited federal funds, in February of

1934, through the Civil Works ~ d m i n i s t r a t i o n . ~ ' This department of the government

soon folded, however, and the survey was transferred to Langden Post's New York

Housing Authority. In many ways the project was similar to the earlier Energy

Survey at Columbia, and it became at this time the primary focus of activity of the

Continental Committee, Their distinctness from Scott and his group was stressed.

"It would be disastrous", a bulletin announced prior to the survey, "to have the sober

and accurate findings of the survey ascribed to Howard Scott o r Frank Vanderlip,
51
early priests of Technocracy". There were other efforts a s well in this direction:
"Units and divisions were urged to use their own discretion in acquainting the public

'with the drastic differences between Technocracy Inc. , and the Continental Committee'.
The term 'Plan of Plenty' and 'Continental Committee' were to be emphasized, and

the word 'technocracy' relegated to its historical significance. '' Scott responded:
"The Continental Committee on Technocracy had officially dropped the word

'Technocracy' from its title according to its bulletin No. 11, and it now speaks of it-

self as the Continental Committee on Advice, stating that it can no longer afford to be

associated with Technocracy. Technocracy returns the compliment. n53

It was not only in New York, but on the national level, that the Committee

showed the tendency toward various alliances with other groups. Decision making

was decentralized on a grand scale and "Local units were allowed, or took upon

themselves, almost complete authority, issuing their own membership cards, setting

and collecting dues, issuing literature, and making and breaking alliances with other
54
reform, radical and political organizations''. In Washington State the majority of
55
the Continental Committee group amalgamated with the Commonwealth Builders and
56
developed a program analogous to Upton Sinclair's EPIC (End Poverty in California),

named appropriately, End Poverty in Washington. They participated in sponsoring

political delegates to the Senate and the state legislature, and in 1936 became the

Washington Commonwealth Federation. The W. C. F. amalgamated with various other

organizations and took over the local Democratic Party. The W. C. F. was in turn

eventually captured by the American C. P . ~When

~ the Utopian Society (a 1933 com-

bination of technocracy economics and secret society ritual) experienced difficulties

in 1935, the Californian branch of the Committee attempted an alliance, which turned
58
out to be less than a resounding success. The conflict and competition between the

two main Technocratic contenders was intense in California, and members defected

back and forth between them with monotonous regularity. In the long run the advan-

tage was to Technocracy Inc. The detailed story of the decline of the Continental

Committee will not be examined here. The final disposition of the group is charac-

teristic. Loeb recommended, and the membership accepted, a merger of the

Committee with the League, for s bun dance.^^ This group eventually dissolved, and

while various groups across the country still called themselves Continental Com-

mittee Technocrats, bit by bit the remnants of Scott's main rival faded out of

existence. It had been a loosely integrated, heterogeneous grouping of primarily

reform-oriented elements with a continually disrupting tendency toward extending it-

self by merger and alliance with other movements. Its ideology was flexible to say

the least, and it was continually sidetracked from its main programs by forays into

diverse forms of political activity. Howard Scott was to maintain the longevity (if not

the public relevance) of Technocracy Inc. by developing his movement along precisely

the opposite lines.

In August of 1934, a Technocracy Inc. bulletin to members said: "There a r e

several imitators, but only the genuine is making headway. Having kept its scientific

groundwork clear and its organization free from entangling alliances with other groups,

Technocracy under Howard Scott's leadership has won the respect of enemy and friend

alike. w 6 0 An internal policy statement in March of 1935, signed by Howard Scott and

titled General Policy on Political Action, elaborated Technocracy Inc. ' s position on

such affairs and threw an interesting light on Scott's position at this time on the

question of a program for attaining power.

A major section of the communication is reproduced in full here with italics

added by this writer.

Technocracy is not a political party. Technocracy is the 'Technological Army

of the New America', and a s such, it must be a vertical alignment of all func-
tional capacities necessary to operate the entire social mechanism of this con-
tinental 'New America'. Technocracy may take political action but it will only
do s o when the organization of Technocracy Inc., is sufficiently trained, dis-
ciplined and widespread to permit the execution of that action in all sections of
this country simultaneousl~. It must be realized that if Technocracy takes
~ o l i t i c a action.
l it will have to be the last political action, a s this action will be
taken for the trinsition of the present economy to a Technate, and that this
action will be taken solely for the abolition of this price system and its accom-
panying political administration.
It is the duty of every Technocrat to prevent the abortive attempts to
involve Technocracy Inc. in political action local or otherwise, before the
organization is prepared to act. Any member or officer guilty of such prac-
tices should have general charges preferred against him at C. H. Q. The
regulations prescribe that wherever such charges shall be sustained and
substantiated against the member so charged he shall be found guilty of
 conduct unbecoming a Technocrat and subject to immediate expulsion.
It is the duty of every Technocrat to keep C . H . Q. fully informed re-
garding any action in the field that has even the slightest appearance of

Scott's position, then, while largely consistent in the matter of predominantly

revolutionary goals, is more ambiguous with regard to means of effecting changes.

The most dominant theme is that Price System collapse is inevitable, and hence

requires and will receive no 'push' from Technocracy Inc. It is the movement1s

purpose to provide the blueprints for the new society, and perhaps the nucleus of the

required personnel to operate the Technate. This latter goal tended to change over

the years as it became clear that Technocracy Inc. could not recruit and/or retain the

required fftechniciansl'. As the italicized sections of the above quotation indicate,

there was, quite early in the movement, some ambiguity about effecting change. Con-

trary to the more passive position of preparing for the millennium, there was the

"promise1' that if and when the organization was sufficiently well and widely organized

it might indeed take action to itself, "make the revolution". This possibility was to

remain an important undercurrent throughout most of the history of the Technocracy

movement. With the collapse of the Continental Committee, Technocracy Inc. became

THE Technocracy movement and it is with the development of this organization, with I*

particular focus on the Vancouver sections, that the remainder of this paper will deal.
 57

NOTES
1
Elsner, p. 50.
2
Ibid. , pp. 50 and 55.
3
New York Times, January 24, 1933, p. 1.

New York Times, January 25, 1933, p. 19.

5
Elsner, p. 55.
6
The Continental Committee on Technocracy, Bulletin No. 13, August 1, 1934
(mimeographed), as quoted in Elsner, p. 56.
7
Harold Loeb, "Technocracy -A Forgotten Episode that Changed the World"
(Unpublished manuscript), p. 4.
8
Ibid., p. 8
9
Elsner, pp. 64-65.

The Vancouver Sun, December 7, 1932, p. 1.

l2
Howard Scott later estimated that there were in this period about 20 different
Technocratic groups across the continent. (Letter from Howard Scott to J. Kaye
F a u l h e r , May 15, 1964; copy in this writer's possession.)

l3 Elsner, p. 70.
l4 New York Times, March 5, 1933, p. 1.
l5
"The Social Objectives Of Technocracy," The New Republic, LXXV,
(May 17, l933), p. 20.

Ibid.

Ibid.

l8 Ibid.

New York Times, May 22, 1933, p. 15.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Elsner,p.71.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid., p. 72.
26 Ibid., pp. 72-73.
27
- M[n, (July 10, 1933), P. 36.
"Bayonets For Technocrats," Time,

28 Ibid.
29
Letter from Howard Scott to J . Kaye Faulkner, November 25, 1964. (Copy
in this writer's possession.)

30 Ibid.
31
Harold Loeb, lTTechnocracy: A Forgotten Episode that Changed The World, "
pp. 14-15.
32
Letter from Scott to Faulkner, November 25, 1964.

33 Ibid.

34 Elsner, p. 85.

35 Ibid.
36
Howard Scott, Science Versus Chaos (Chicago: Technocracy Inc., 1933)
37
Technocracy Study Course, New York: Technocracy Inc., 1934.
38 Technocracy, Some Questions Answered, (1934), p. 1.

39 Ibid., p. 6.

40 lbid.,p.20.

41 Talmon, p. 130.
42 Technocracy, Some Questions Answered, (l934), p. 7.

43 Ibid., p. 22.

44 Ibid.,p.23.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.,p.31.

47 Ibid.
48 Technocracy Inc., Continental Committee, New York, July 1934, n.d.
mimeographed, p. 1.

49 Ibid.

51 Continental Committee on Technocracy, Bulletin No. 11, April 14, 1934,

a s quoted by Elsner, p. 96.

52 Ibid.
53
Technocracy Inc. , Continental Committee, p. 2 -3.
54 Elsner, p. 98.
55
This was apparently the result of an internal schism over the issue of political
activity versus education.
56
A Continental Committee splinter group backed Sinclair's EPIC program and
supported him f o r Governor of California.

57 Schlesinger, p. 123.
58
Elsner, p. 100, and Schlesinger, p. 110.

59 Elsner, p. 110.
60
Technocracy Inc., Some Differences Between Technocracy And Other Groups,
New York, August 1934, n. d. mimeographed, p. 3.
61
Howard Scott, General Policy On Political Action, New York, N. Y. : Techno-
cracy Inc. , March 1935. mimeographed, p. 2 .
 CHAPTER SEVEN

TECHNOCRACY INC. - 1934 TO THE SECOND WORLD WAR

The choice of the Vancouver Technocrats a s a focus for a study of the Techno-

cracy Inc. movement was in part a coincidence, inasmuch a s the writer and one of the

few remaining sections of the movement were both in Vancouver; i t was possible for

the author to study this section a s a participant observer for approximately one year.

There is, however, another legitimation for centering our study on the Van-

couver section. This a r e a has been a stronghold of Technocratic activity since 1934,

and remains today the only Canadian center with a section of Technocracy Inc. still

operating. The question of how representative this section is of other areas is l e s s

clear. The strongly centralized control of the movement seems to have maintained a

high degree of similarity among the various groups. Different centers may be more

o r less successful in recruitment, but ideology, organizational forms and practices,

and various activities a r e formulated and controlled by CHQ (Continental Head-

quarters) and Howard Scott. The organization values (and enforces) discipline and

uniformity, and hence wide divergence and heterogeneity a r e not characteristic of

various segments of the movement. The Vancouver section should reflect, to some

extent at least, the general character of the movement.

The introduction of Technocracy to Vancouver was initially through the highly

favourable reporting of the Vancouver Sun newspaper. The owner and publisher,

Robert Cromie, was apparently favourably impressed with the Wayne Parish articles,

and the -
Sun gave the ideas wide coverage. This was in November and December of

1932, and if the reports were factually questionable and the interpretations somewhat

a t variance with those of other proponents of Technocracy, this simply reflected the

general confusion on the subject at this point. Inadequacies of fact and understand-

ing were more than,compensated for by enthusiasm. The headline of a special edition

on December 3, 1932 read: MAN AND MACHINE HERALD NEW ERA. Further

down the page it read, "Technocracy will probably be North America's NEW ECONOMIC
POLICY".' Shortly before this was printed, a -
Sun editorial had said:

Just as Technocracy in 1920 forecast the crash of 1929, so does Technocracy

today forecast that unless drastic adjustments a r e made in distribution, within
18 months the modern 'world faces national bankruptcy and chaosf. This
prophecy is something that must at once engage the mind of all thinking people.2

Given this statement, it was not surprising to find in the December 7th edition:

Technocracy offers a relief from the tyranny of automatic machinery, a tyranny

that is responsible for all the unemployment of today. It implies a breaking down
of most of our political and economic conceptions. It may mean a new civili-
zation. It is the most important and vital word on the lips of people today.=

That Cromie defined the newspaper man's role as somewhat broader than mere

reporting, is indicated by the following statement from the same edition: "Techno-

cracy - the use of automatic machines - is making a new world for the boys and girls
of today and tomorrow. How are they prepared for the world? Interpretation and

leadership must come from Educators and Editors. " 4 M r . R . Cromie7s interpre-

tive activities on behalf of Technocracy seem not to have been restricted to printed

editorials, for in January the -

Sun reported three public lectures he had given locally

to the Kiwanis, the Legion Hall in New Westminster, and the Vancouver Institute at
5
U. B. C. on three consecutive days.

Details on the fortunes of Technocracy during the next year and a half a r e

lacking. We do not know how those interested in Technocracy in the Vancouver area

responded to the various conflicts and crises affecting the movement in the eastern

United States. The Continental Committee, although very strong in Washington State,

seems to have made no gains in British Columbia in this period. At some point in

1933-1934,~ a Technocracy Inc. section was formed that met in various members'

homes, and on September of 1934 a mimeographed bulletin called the Technocracy

Digest commenced publication. The editor was a journalist named L. M. Dickenson,

7
and W. E. Walter was listed as local Director of Technocracy Inc. The introduction

to this first issue was a hyperbolical description of the upstanding character and

immense abilities of Howard Scott, which is indicative of the Vancouver section's

loyalties in the early conflicts. It is quoted in full here, as it is a characteristic

example of the hyperbole Scott was able to inspire.

 Howard Scott. . . The tall, rangy, dynamic, almost legendary leader of
Technocracy Inc., was born in Virginia, educated in Europe and has stored in
his brain probably the greatest mass of engineering and scientific data ever
accumulated by any single man. In his clear, decisive voice he can pour forth
facts and figures until the listener reels. He has the capacity for dramatizing
the enormous body of thought thet [sic] is Technocracy. He is a leader.

Howard Scott as director of Technocracy is supremely well qualified for the

position. He formulated the ideas from which emerged Technocracy; he has
stayed with his ideas all through the false prosperity of the twenties, and he
has brought the ideas to the searching glare of wide publicity. He has great
organizational ability, and has energy to carry his six feet two through the
strenuous job of conducting the greatest engineering job ever conceived; the
planning of a social order to fit the needs of the new age of power and technol-
ogy. *
The December, 1934 issue of the Digest announced that Technocracy Inc. was

moving into rented meeting rooms on Pender Street, and that this "headquarters"
9
would be large enough for small meetings and study groups. The primary activities

of a Technocracy Inc. group at this point were education and recruitment. The

Technocracy Study Course was available and was the basic reading matter for new

members .lo To complete the course, meeting one night per week, took anywhere

from 15 - 20 weeks. Other Technocracy writings were, of course, also recommended,

a s were the works of Thorstein Veblen and Bassett ones." A number of regularly

published Technocracy journals were available and widely subscribed to. In addition

to the local Technocracy Digest, there was The Monad (Kansas City) and The Wis-

consin Technocrat (Milwaukee), as well as several pamphlets and regular ffreleasesff

from CHQ (Continental Headquarters). l 2

By February, came the first hint of internal difficulties on the issues of

"activismf' versus ffeducation". Nearby Washington State Technocrats under the

Continental Committee were, it must be remembered, extremely active in a diverse

range of activities, including those political. Education was all very well, but after

all, the "inevitable collapse of the price system" was imminent, and the role the

membership was to play in saving the continent and bringing about the Technate was

not too clear. The editor of the Digest castigated the waverers.

There comes a time when some pseudo Technocrats cast longing eyes at the
activities of certain political groups, frothing in apparent activity, and they
.
raise the cry too of flActivity". . They who howl "Activity", meaning political
or co-operative activity have missed the entire purpose of ~ e c h n o c r a c y . ' ~
The editorial went on to say that clearly such people did not understand the lthoughtl

of Howard Scott. It reiterated the research and education goals of Technocracy Inc.,

but this of course did not solve the basic ambiguities.

The movement seemed not to be suffering in terms of recruitment, however,

as in this same issue the formation of a New Westminster Study Group was announced."

In March the Digest carried another page one editorial of the follies of

and included a statement from CHQ:

Technocracy must have no internecine quarrels within the ranks over stupid
orthodoxies carried over from any social philosophy.15

A statement directly from Howard Scott said:

Organize your section, get your discipline, get your instructions, and you'll
be ready to go somewhere .I6

As the only instructions forthcoming demanded essentially that members educate them-

selves more thoroughly in a literature that contained no solution to the ambiguity over

program and tactics, this was a rather limited solution.

Developments in May and June were to intensify and clarify the situation to

some extent. Previous statements by Scott had indicated that the "inevitable collapse

of the price systemf1might come as soon as 1940. Now in May of 1935 a new prediction:

Howard Scott, the Director in Chief of Technocracy Inc., has issued one more
of his r a r e statements. As usual, it is important. Instead of 1940 being the
year beyond which the price system cannot last, the date is now brought as
close as 1937. Howard Scott does not guess at things. He knows. His know-
ledge is as accurate as scientific observation can make it. The time is now
short. It is time that all Technocrats got busy.17

It may perhaps be overly cynical to see this change in the predicted date of

llcollapsel' as a deliberate manoeuvre to eliminate internal dissension, and of course

the effect could have been to aggravate doubts over ambiguities in the program for

dealing with the impending collapse. The June Digest dealt with this problem by dis-

closing the existence of necessarily secret plans and reiterating the necessity of a

"disciplined army1'. The release read:

When the time comes to act those at the top, with a bird1s eye view of the
whole scene, will issue orders to this Ifarmy" and every Technocrat who i s
a Technocrat will obey without question; not in a slavery sort of way, but-
because he or she will be able to understand why such an order is given! . ..
 just as the parliamentary - democratic form of government is a failure s o i s
the military army where every private is a general is a mob.'*

Membership figures have always been secret in Technocracy Inc., even to

members, so that the strength and activity of the movement must be gauged in other

ways. At this point the combination of reassurances about tactics and the prophecy of

even more imminent collapse of the social system seem to have had the effect of

increasing the range and intensity of participation in the movement. Whereas in

February there had been four general activities per week, that is, two study classes,

one public speaking class, and a directors' meeting, in June the offices were kept

open all day (10 a . m . - 5 p. m. ) and in the evening from 8 p . m . - 10 p. m . , 19 and in

the July issue we read:

The office is being kept open each night in the week by a committee. Realizing
that organization time is growing shorter, the committee has been reorganized
with excellent prospects for activity. We a r e finding that the office is humming
with activity day and night. 20

There is a phrase in Talmanfs article (discussed in Chapter One) that is highly

appropriate a s descriptive of these years of the Technocracy movements. Talman

says: "Radical millennium movements regard the millennium as imminent and live

in tense expectation and preparation for it. " 2 ' The previous quotation from the July

Technocracy Digest exemplified this condition, but perhaps the following from the

August edition is even clearer.

Time! Much has been written about how it speeds relentlessly on. We know
that it does, and we, in Technocracy know that in a short distance off in the
future. . . the price system is going to collapse. 2 2
and further . . . We of Technocracy Inc. must first realize that time is des-
perately short. We have before us the most arduous and the greatest job that
has ever been attempted in history. Chaos and stark terror a r e right ahead,
and with airplane speed we a r e rushing toward it.23

The interesting question becomes, of course: and when prophecy fails?

This will be examined at the point where the question becomes more relevant to

Technocracy Inc., the period of World War 11. Between the time of the just-quoted

statements (1935) and the Second World War seems to have been a period of increas-

ing activity and membership expansion. Although organizational strength is difficult

to estimate because membership figures have always been kept secret, other writers
using various means of extrapolation (number of sections, volume of literature and s o

forth) are generally agreed that 1938-1940 was the high point of both activities and

membership.24 Following 1939-1940 the llimminenceltof collapse becomes more

questionable.

In 1935, we observe that there was no such ambiguity to mar Howard Scott's

second continental tour. The 1935 Continental Tour reflected the growing organiza-

tional strength of the movement. In 1934 many centers visited had few or no organized
Technocracy groups, and often Scott's speeches were given under the auspices of

other organizations or ad hoc organizing committees. In 1935, on the other hand,

delegates from local sections turned out to meet Scott at the train." The Hollywood

Bowl seated 10,000 to hear him speak, and San Diego1s California Pacific International

Exposition declared a "Technocracy ~ a He ~

arrived~ in Vancouver
~ . on November
~ ~ +

9th and was given a half hour to speak on a local radio station (CNRU).27 The local

Technocrats reported a 461% membership gain in the August 1934 - August 1935

period, offset by a mere 4% loss. No base figures were given, however." Through-

out 1936, we find suggestions of a continuing conflict involving on the one hand internal

discussion on tactics and goals, and on the other, emphasis by the leadership on the

need for unamimity, cohesion, and discipline, and alternately, stresses on the limited

time remaining for the Price System. The debate seems less intense than previously;

nevertheless it is still discernible. It seems to have focussed increasingly on the

claimed uniqueness of Technocracy, by comparison with "other organizations", and

less on the previous question of just what Technocracy's plans were, if any. New

members were seen as particularily susceptible to various ' false1 conceptions. In

an editorial entitled A Tip To New Members, we find:

You are joining an organization which stands alone in this day and age and
which has no counterpart in all history. 2 9
and further.. . You must leave outside any and all arguments, r e class
antagonisms, political ideas, philosophical and religious differences,
opinions and pipe dreams of all kinds. The organization demands unswerving
loyalty from its members. Technocracy comes first last and always.=O

The importance of these editorial quotes may be underestimated by readers

used to social movement writings, which are normally heavily weighted in the direction
of continual debate on matters of organizational forms, practices, programs, and

tactics. In other words, those observers of, and participants in, social movements

whose experience is that 90% of discussion, both verbal and written, concerns

organizational tactics and direction, may feel that these isolated quotations from

Technocracyls writings a r e of limited significance. With Technocracy, though, the

case is somewhat different. Increasingly as the movement develops the various

journals tell us less and less about organizational affairs, such as, debates, conflicts,

program, and tactics. Increasingly the bulk of the writing concerns such things as:

demonstrations of the correctness of Technocracyls ideas, prophecies fulfilled (ex-

cluding the major one of course), introduction of new technology, debunking of other

movements, establishment politics, and critiques (often detailed and incisive) of the

Price System in general. This process reflects the increasing insularity and

sectarianism of the movement, which will be a major theme of discussion as we ex-

amine the process of development of this movement. It is important to recognize that

in the period 1934-1940 this trend was developing, and that comments in the

Technocracy journals on matters of organizational forms and practices are signifi-

cant precisely because they were increasing by the exception rather than the rule.

With increases in membership in late 1935 and 1936, emphasis within the

Vancouver section started to focus on the study course for new members. Techno-

crats were not reticent in stressing its value. In the December, 1936 issue of the

Technocracy Digest we find this evaluation:

The study course has received the highest commendation from some of the
greatest educators on the continent and has been termed the greatest single
contribution to education within a decade. 31

The value of a definite educational program for the membership had been clearly

recognized by the rival Continental Committee and identified as one of the disadvan-

tages they suffered by comparison with Technocracy Inc. In a letter to Harold Loeb

from Charles Bonner in October of 1935, Bonner notes: "I warn you however, that

the people expect a step-by-step trainingu.'' Elsner, drawing from various other

sources on the Continental Committee, adds: lfBonner had repeatedly emphasized the
necessity for such lessons to keep an avowedly educational organization functioning,

and the rival Technocracy Inc., had begun to issue its rather substantial Study Course

late in 1934. " 33

In Technocracy Inc., both in Vancouver and elsewhere, the Study Course be-

came the single most important axis of activity in these early years. New members
were immediately channeled into a study course that provided a complete and thorough

initiation into the intricacies of Technocratic thought. One indication of the efficiency

of this program is indicated in A . W. JonesTbook, Life, Liberty and Prosperity. 34

The book i s primarily a study of the attitudes of various groups toward labour and

business, and the conflicts between these two. The study was carried out in Akron,

Ohio in 1938-1939, and a Technocracy group was intentially singled out in a sampling.

The study is useful for our purpose inasmuch as the author deliberately selected two

groups of Technocrats: one group that had completed the Study Course and one that

was just beginning it. The "beginners", he found, were by and large "no different

from other citizens in their attitudes towards corporate property".35 "Indoctrination,

however, " he continues, "changes the individual into a type that we found to be unique. "36

On a scale that ran from 0 to 32, high scores indicating favourable attitudes towards

corporate property rights, the Technocracy initiates scored "an average of 11.9,

which is very near to the average of the representative random sample".37 Those who

had completed the Study Course, on the other hand, "scored an average of 2.9".)*

These results indicate the efficiency of the course in changing members1 viewpoints,

at least so f a r as attitudes toward corporate property rights are concerned. We will

discuss in later chapters other, broader changes in membersTlives resulting from

participation in the movement.

The Study Course was not the only Technocracy Inc., "educational" literature,

of course; by this time there were a number of journals being published across the

continent. The actual dates of publication and other particulars of this kind of

ffugitivef literature are always hard to track down. Nevertheless, Benson cites a

1936 printing of Introduction to Technocracy by Howard Scott --

et a1 as listing 10
different Technocracy Inc. Journals at this time. These included:39

Technocracy Digest Vancouver

81
-- 41 Cleveland
The Section Post Portland
The Northern Technocrat Edmonton
The Southwest Corner San Diego
The Desert Salute Hinckley, California
The Foothills Technocrat Calgary
Streamline Age Phoenix
Technocratic America Fontana, California
The Monad Kansas City, Missouri

Technocracy1s definition of itself a s an l'educationall' organization has several

levels of meaning to participants. The first we have discussed is a way of distinguish-

ing it from "activist" organizations, politics, and of course the Continental

Committee while it was in existence. At another level the reference is primarily to

the initiations and indoctrination embodied in the extensive Study Course that serves

a s well a s in the early years (1934-1940) to distinguish Technocracy Inc. from other

Technocratic groups. "Educational activities1' refers also to both proselytization of

potential recruits and educating the wider public in the importance of Technocratic

ideas. There is yet one other important aspect of Technocracyls definition of itself as

"educational", which is that Technocrats see themselves a s people who have "had the

advantage" of a unique and valuable EDUCATION. They a r e now EDUCATED PEOPLE.

We will discuss this in more detail below in the section dealing with the movement

today.

The period from August, 1936 to August, 1937 seems to have been in somewhat

of a lower key than the previous two years. The writings still s t r e s s that "time is

shortM,but not so often nor so forcefully. Emphasis seems to have been on internal

organizational consolidation. Where before, much time and organizational resources

had been focussed on recruiting and consequently "educating" members through the

Study Course, now a comprehensive committee system was elaborated and members

were encouraged to participate on various committees. In the February, 1936 Digest,

we read: "Members a r e required to fill positions on various committees. Every

member should be on some For children of members and young re-

cruits a Technocratic version of the Boy Scouts was created and the Digest reported:
"The Farad Section composed of boys between the ages of 16 and 21 is making won-

derful progress'1.4' The main emphasis of Technocracy Inc. seemed to have shifted

from publicity and recruitment toward "the building of the only organization that can

control the situation that will arise". 42 (Italics added. )

Other movements, members were told, rely on "emotional appeals and while

Technocracy Inc. could do this, the effects would not be lasting and the quality of

recruits so gained would be questionable. This is amply illustrated by the rapid

growth and decay of many contemporary social movements that have employed such

A slacking off of recruitment was implicitly admitted but justified in

terms of the quality of those who were attracted.

I,
Growth by such methods [unspecified will be slow, but it will be a selective
process, and will ensure a members ip of the type required. Men who enter
an organization through an emotional excitation a r e as readily lost to another;
men who enter an organization with understanding and with the acceptance of
the factual basis of its program cannot be led astray.44

The job of the Technocrats, [members were told] now is to digest and build
according to the specification and organization that is completely functional
in structure, capable of operating the entire equipment on this continent at
the time of crisis; embracing all types of people, particularly those capable
individuals who a r e now designing, constructing, and operating the existing
equipment, and disciplined and trained to act intelligently under any and all
circumstances .45

The focus on organization is clear, but it seems that this combination of declin-

ing recruitment and a shift toward s t r e s s on organizational structure tended to allow

previously unsolved problems to resurface. This last quotation, for instance, allows

some ambiguity a s to the precise role of Technocracy in the impending chaos. This

ambiguity is highlighted not only by the fact that recruitment is proceeding slowly,

but also that the kind of people joining a r e not predominantly those "designing, con-

structing, and operating the existing equipment". The movement is not a soviet of

technicians. The potential role of the Technocrat is interpreted in a slightly different

manner further on in this same publication. The Technocrat, it is conceeded, is not

necessarily the "expert". Nevertheless, "Upon this group [ ~ e c h n o c r a cInc.]

~ will

r e s t the responsibility of persuading the functionally capable specialists to assume

the uninterrupted continuation of their particular function", a s well a s in some

circumstances "providing pinch hitters for e m e r g e n ~ i e s " . ~ ~

We now have seen two instances where the ambiguity of Technocracy Inc . ' s

program had become a matter of internal debate and conflict. These instances were

merely the initial ones, in what has been a recurrent theme in the movement. As

early as 1932 Scott had defined Technocracy solely as a "research and education"

organization, but continually thereafter the movement was to make tentative excur-

sions toward qualification and re-definition of this description. Critics claim that

Technocracy had no program for attaining its goals. Such criticisms unfortunately

tend to obscure the constantly recurring internal debate and conflict over the problem

of tactics and program. We will be touching on this area at various points below, as

it is relevant to the development of the movement.

Scottts yearly tour was limited in 1936 to the American Central States, and

apparently inspired few if any new sections. Jonathan Glendon, who was becoming

the most prominent Technocracy Inc. public speaker (after Scott) toured California
47
and the Pacific Northwest, speaking in some 55 different places. In British
Columbia, Glendon spoke in 10 different places, including the Vancouver section.

These included North Vancouver, Chilliwack, Revelstoke, Salmon Arm, Vernon,

Kelowna, Penticton, Creston, and ranb brook.^^ In the same issue i t was reported

that the findings of Technocracy Inc. clearly showed that the Price System "is going

to completely collapse sometime between now and 1 9 4 0 " . ~ ~Scott's earlier, more

specific prediction of the timing of the crucial events had been postponed from 1937

to 1940 and had also been made substantially less specific. By contrast with the

announcement of the earlier prediction, the 'revision' was not dramatized. The

alteration was made quietly with little fanfare and the "intense expectation" of im-

minent chaos seems not to have abated too greatly. This was, after all, 1936, and

'lsometime between now and 1940" was still not that distant.

The movement in British Columbia, as we have seen, had reached somewhat

of a plateau, although there was still some growth. The Technocracy Digest improved

its format from a mimeograph form to offset printing, and i t was announced that both
Victoria and Kelowna had now reached charter size (25 members),50 Elsewhere in
western Canada - Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Moose Jaw, 51 Banff and Prince Albert, also
attained the requisite 25 members. 52 In April of 1937 the Vancouver Technocrats
started their own radio program, which was on the a i r every Wednesday at 7:30 for
53
15 minutes.

The Fall of 1937 saw Howard Scott's most extensive continental tour to date.

The following map indicates the itinerary as originally planned. In September of 1937
a more complete tour of California was included, covering 10 more centers. 54 Since,
in almost all cases, the centers encompassed by the tour were ones that had a
Technocracy Inc, group of some sort already existent, the schedule gives a clear

picture of the geographic distribution of the movement at this point. A movement

originally centered in the eastern United States in its early, highly public phase, had
gained its only organized strength in the western part of the continent, and moreover,
had become an organization as well established (if not more so) in Canada a s in the

U. S.A., a s the map, and the data following, on audiences at lectures, suggest.

Scott actually spoke in 64 different places, 30 of which were in Canada. In

Vancouver the Technocracy Divest carried a continuing commentary on the tour from
August to November, reporting, among other things, particularly substantial audi-

ences. The following list is compiled from these reports.

Canada: Winnipeg. ......... ,2000 people at a public lecture by Scott

Prince Albert ...... 650 11 ?f I? 11 1I 11 l?

..
Edmonton., . , , . , ,1000 11 1111 l? 11 11 11

Calgary. .......... ,2500 I? l? l? l? 11 1) 11

Salmon Arm. ....... 350 l?

l?
11 1'
11 1?
tl
11
11
1?
11 11
??
Port Alberni , , , , , , , 500 ?I

Nanaimo.. ......... 500 lf I ? ?1 11 11 11 11

Vancouver ........ ,2500 ?? 0 I' I? 11 11 11

Cleveland,. . , , , , . , ,1000 people at a public lecture by Scott

Bellingham, ,, , , , . . , 600 ?I 11 11 11 11 11 11
Steward.. .......... 360 ?I ?I l f l? I? ?I 11

Everett.. .......... 750 11 1) I? I1 1? I? 11

Puyallug.. ......... 800 (I 11 11 1?

11 11 11

Tacoma.. .......... 900 ?I I ? I? I? I? 11 11

Grants Pass.. ...... 260 11 ???I 11 11 11 11

.
Los Angeles, ,, , , , ,6000 11 11 11 11 11
11 ?I

With the exception of the audience in Los Angeles, it is clear that the overall trend

was toward greater interest in Canadian centers,

 We have previously described Technocracy Inc. as increasingly polarized

and sectarian, and there are two main features of this tour that tend to support this
conception. The first is an increasing emphasis on the concept of Technocrats a s an
elite, and moreover a biological elite, and the other is the initiation of additional
movement-distinguishing symbols (uniforms and grey cars) above and beyond those
already utilized (salutes, the Monad, Technocracy colours (red and gray)).
The idea of biological elitism was not original to this phase of the movement.
It had, for instance, been dealt with at various points in the Study Course, but in that

context primarily as a means of debunking Democracy; for example, "Upon bio-

logic fact, theories of democracy go to pieces". 55 The new focus in 1937 was on the
direct relationship of biological elitism and participation in Technocracy. The page
one editorial of the Technocracy Dip-est of September, 1937 included the following:
Genius is a r a r e biological occurrence. The behaviour of the majority of the
165,000,000 people on this continent indicates a capacity but little about the
moron level. Three percent or roughly about five million of them have a suf-
ficiently well developed cerebral cortex, the activity and past training to
become Technocrats, The balance a r e never expected to understand it, parti-
cipate in it, or supply the requisite leadership to effect the greatest social
transition in all history. 56
At the conclusion of the tour, L. M. Dickinson, a Vancouver founder of Technocracy
now working at CHQ, related this concept more directly to organizational recruitment:

This necessary minority of people must be reached and trained. The balance
of the public is not interested and is incapable of assimilating the necessary
facts and implications. . . At the proper moment, the trained organization of
Technocracy may find it necessary to present Technocracy to the masses in
an assimilatible form to prevent a descent to mob hysteria. Technocracy does
not discuss tactics, but presents a mobile front to take care of any emergent
situations. 57

He also reiterated that: . .it will be necessary to build a strong organization that will
be able to assume the responsibility when given complete authority to act by the press-
ure of events. " " Emphasis was being focussed on a small, trained, disciplined, elite
that would, at the appropriate time, act under the, as yet, secret plans being formu-
lated at C HQ .
It was during this tour that the l'technological army" created the idea of uni-

forms and grey cars. The idea seems to have emerged relatively spontaneously from
k
the membership originally. Throughout the tour Howard Scott had been dressed in a
grey suit and had driven a grey car with red lined wheels. The December issue of
the Technocracy Digest commented favourably on both the "uniform" and the car and

suggested that members do likewise as soon as there was official word from CHQ on
tlregulation dress" and f'official specificationsf1on the cars. This seems to have been
the first mention of the idea, and such spontaneous emergence of ideas on policy be-
came increasingly r a r e as the movement developed. The uniforms and cars were
later to be the basis of Technocracy's Symbolization Program, and resulted in con-
siderable adverse publicity in which the public image of the movement as Fascistic
was more clearly developed by the public press.
This program, and the resulting image of the movement as Fascistic, was not
to come until the early 1940's; the 1938-1940 period was to be the organizational high
point of the movement. One index of this growth was a substantial increase in pub-

lishing efforts, which indicates not only organizational resources and zeal in produc-
ing this literature, but an increasingly wide audience willing to purchase the items.
In this regard it should be noted that the expenses of publication had to be completely
covered either by internal subsidy or returns from sales, as the journals have never

carried any outside, Price System, advertising. In addition to the regular journals
listed on page 68, Edmonton now produced The Northern Technocrat, Calgary had
59
Foothills Technocrat, and Phoenix published Streamline Age. Y3askatoon and

Winnipeg each got out a printed edition of the official Study Course", and Vancouver
reprinted the Introduction to Technocracx and Science Versus Chaos. f f 6 0
Scott's 1938 continental tour was significantly different in one major aspect
from the extensive one of 1937. The difference was that in 1938, when Scott concluded
his speech, people applied for membership. In 1937 the reports of the tour stressed

either the large numbers of people in his audiences and/or the high qualifications of
his listeners, In 1938 they reported: "The significant feature was the number of
listeners who were ready and eager to join the organization. In no city along the way

was the working force equal to the flood of membership applicants. u6' he movement's
official journal, The Technocrat, reported: "Every indication shows that the im-
petus resulting from this 1938 tour is skyrocketing Technocracy Inc. into the first
place as the dominant organization in both Canada and the United States preparing for
social change. f f 6 2
CHQ New York moved into larger (and more expensive) quarters, as did the
Vancouver section. Henry Elsner compiled the following list of existing Technocracy

Inc. sections for the period 1938-1941.~'

California Arizona
Alhambra Los Angeles Glendale
Arcadia Lynwood Phoenix
Bakersfield Maywood Tucson
Bellflower Pasadena
Burbank South Pasadena Neveda
Colton Red Bluff Las Vegas
Eagle Rock River side
E l Monte San Diego Colorado
Graham San Francisco Denver
Hawthorne San Jose
Hinkley San Pedro
Hollywood Santa Monica
Huntington Park Van Nuys
Long Beach Victor vile

Northwest:
Washington British Columbia Alberta
Bellingham Snohomish Kelowna Banff
Camas Spokane Kimberly Calgary
Edmds Tacoma Nanaimo Edmonton
East Stanwood
Everett
Marys ville
Vancouver
Oregon
New Weetminster
Port Alberni
Salmon Arm
-
Idaho
Couer dlAlene
Mt, Vernon Astoria Trail
Olympia Grants pas^ Vancouver Montana
Puyallug Newburg Victoria Butte
hattle Portland Great Fallra

Great Lakes:

-
Ohio
Akron Cleveland Gallon W avenna
A shtabula Columbue Kent South Euclid Willoughby
Barberton Cuyahoga Fall8 Maple Heights Springfield
Canton Dayton Mnn~field Toledo

Michigan Wis eonein Ontario Penney lvania Illinois

Detroit Appleton Hamilton Ambridge Chicago
Flint Green Bay Kitchener Pittlsburg
Bontitec Milwaukee St, ' P h ~ m a ~ Roeheeter
Neenah Tor onto Tarentum
Windeor
Central:
Minnesota
Minneapolis
-
Utah Saskatchewan
Ogden Moose Jaw
Warren salt Lake City Prince Albert
Regina
Missouri Saskatoon
Kansas City Manitoba Yorkton
St. Louis Winnipeg
South:
Florida Mississippi
Miami Hattiesburg
East:
Massachusetts New York
Mansfield New York City

Nine sections a r e listed for British Columbia, and it should be added that 25
members were the minimum required to meet the CHQ requirements. Elsner quali-
fies this list by saying that it may well underestimate the number of sections in Canada
because of limited data. This is true with reference to British Columbia, as at least
one additional section (Port Moody) existed at this time, There is a more important
source of underestimation inherent in these data, The difficulty resides in the fact

that, whereas the rapid growth of the movement in these two years did result in a
number of sections, it also resulted in a far larger number of semi-independent study
groups that were not part of established sections. These groups, sparked by Scott's
tours, set up their own study groups with the help of established local sections, to
study the course guide and learn about Technocracy. Discussion leaders and speakers

were provided by the 'parent1 sections, with the idea that these groups would them-
selves eventually meet "charter requirementsffand become separate sections.
Data a r e extremely limited here, but one specific example is available. Port

Moody and Ioco both had study groups In 1938, which eventually amalgamated to form
the Port Moody section, subsequently taking on the responsibility of assisting other

study groups in this area. Sam Ott, the director of education for the now defunct
Port Moody section, reports that at the high point of this period there were 1 7 dif-

ferent study groups in the area. Haney, Port Coquitlam, Abbotsford, Coquitlam,
Websters Corner, Mission, and Matsqui all had one or more sections, and Mr. Ottfs
responsibilities as director of education took him out "6 nights out of 7, visiting
64
groups1'. "Back in the thirties it seemed rather urgentw, he says, "that's why I was
out s o much, Because there was this urgency to impart sufficient knowledge so that
in case of a crisis they could act sensibly. This was the critical time, the system had
broken down. 1165 We have no way of knowing how representative the Port Moody area
was relative to the rest of British Columbia. Nevertheless it seems to indicate that
Elsner's list of chartered sections does, in fact, underestimate the scope of Techno-

cracy Inc. during this period.

A paragraph in the Technocracy journal summed up the overall picture from
their point of view.
~ has a trained personel, publishes 12 magazines
Today i t [ ~ e c h n o c r a c1nc.1
and numerous items of literature; has offices in all major cities and towns in
Western Canada, the Pacific Coast and Mountain States, and in key cities
throughout the middle west and eastern states; promotes an almost continuous
succession of lecture tours; holds hundreds of study classes and dozens of
public lectures weekly; and in numerous places has research staffs which
carry on extensive research.66
Another factor was soon to enter into the situation. In 1939 Scott told his

audiences that Technocracy was expanding so fast, ". . .that before long neither Canada
nor the U. S. could discuss war without permission of this organization. 116'

To most outside observers, and probably to many Technocrats, this statement

undoubtedly seemed somewhat hyperbolic. Nevertheless, within 24 hours of Britain's

declaration of war on Germany, Scott dispatched a lengthy telegram to Prime Minister

.
MacKenzie King stating among other things, that lfTechnocracy Inc is unequivocally
opposed to the conscription of the manpower of Canada for any war anywhere off this

continent. This in itself could be interpreted a s simply a form of isolationist

protest, Some other statements from the telegram, though, suggested that Howard
Scott considered that the movement had a more major and direct role to play in these

affairs.
 Therefore, M r . Premier, Technocracy Inc. will consider the attempt of any
political leader on this Continent to conscript the manpower of this Continent
for death and destruction abroad to be a violation of the destiny of this Contin-
ent. Technocracy Inc. contends that this Continent at its imminent rendez-
vous with destiny will hold such violators of this Continent's progression
responsible for their acts.

The Continent of North America when organized according to the Continental

strategy of a Pax Americana will lead civilization and will be immune from all
attack. Technocracy Inc. stands ready with the blueprints of this Pax
Ameri~ana.~~

A major Technocracy program called Total Conscription, which became official

policy in mid 1940, contained some radical reversals from the positions stated in this

telegram. One idea that the Technocrats presented shortly after this telegram was

sent, however, was quite consistent with the rather grandiose image of the move-

ment's significance in social affairs, implicit in the telegram. It was recommended

that Howard Scott be made Director of National Defense, with rather wide reaching

powers. The Yorkton, Saskatchewan section announced the program on June 4, 1940,

somewhat prematurely, and on June 21, 1940, the Government of Canada, by an

70
Order-in-Council, banned Technocracy Inc. Elsner reports that "In the House of

Commons, July 16, 1940, Prime Minister MacKenzie King had answered an M. P. 's

query on the matter by stating that: '. . . the literature of Technocracy discloses, in

effect, that one of its objectives is to overthrow the government and constitution of

this country by force1.'17' The ban was to be in effect for approximately three years,

the announcement of its removal being made personally by MacKenzie King on

October 15, 1943.'~

In July of 1940, the complete specifications of the Total Conscription program

73
were released by CHQ. This program was to be an important one for the movement

a s a whole. The participation of the Canadian Technocrats was, owing to the official

ban, necessarily minimal. Howard Scott had instructed Technocrats in Canada to

accept the action of the government, and for the three-year period there was reportedly

no further communication between CHQ and Canadian ~ e c h n o c r a t s . ' ~ In Vancouver,

signs were removed from official meeting places, and the RCMP confiscated all files

and records. The interesting question at this point is, of course, what was the effect
of this ban on the Canadian part of the movement. Unfortunately data on this period
a r e extremely limited.

There is some indication that Scott's passive response to the ban was per-

ceived negatively by some Canadian members. It was, after all, a grave contrast
with the tone of very recent statements from Scott that Technocracy Inc. was rapidly
becoming so dominant in North America that neither the U.S.A. nor Canada could even

"discuss" war without the movement's participation and consent. Mrs. Long, an ex-
Technocrat whose father was an authorized Technocracy Inc. speaker at the time,

says :
They [ ~ c o t and
t CHQ] never made any defense. They never took any steps to
counteract the bad publicity and these statements, which were to my know-
ledge completely false. That was when we started to realize that something
was dead at the top, you see. We felt that Scott had either lost interest o r
lost control o r somewhere along the line, just wasn't keeping
However widespread this kind of response was, it appears that all formal activities

--
stopped, while some small, less organized meetings continued on an ad hoc basis in
various members' homes. The only 'underground' sort of activity that seems to have
taken place, and that apparently for a short time (approximately one year), was the

formation of a committee that called itself the Canadians for Victory Committee. The
Committee was not formed until 1942 and reverted to Technocracy Inc. when the ban

on the organization was lifted in 1943. 76

This group produced one pamphlet called Trends, which outlined in complete
detail the Technocracy program for Total Conscription. This was in the Technocracy

style, used the Technocracy language and symbols, was printed in red and grey; in
fact the only thing missing was the name Technocracy Inc. Aside from printing and

distributing this pamphlet, the Committee publicized the program on at least two
occasions (September 8th, 1943 and September 22nd) on local radio b r ~ a d c a s t s . ~ ~
When the ban on the movement was lifted in 1943, the pre-war thrust of the
movement had been effectively halted. Of the various Canadian journals, only the
Technocracy Digest resumed publication. The ban, and Scott's limited response to

it, had been detrimental to some degree. The dislocation and dispersal of people
affected by war-time conditions also contributed. In any event, the removal of the

-
ban on Technocracy Inc. in Canada occurred prior to the war's end, and Total

Conscription was still the primary concern for the movement as a whole. As this

program was in some senses fundamentally important in terms of its consequences

for the future of the movement, we will discuss it at some length in the following

chapter before returning to a discussion of the movement in British Columbia.

 NOTES
1
The Vancouver Sun, Special Edition, December 3, 1932, p. 1.
2
The Vancouver Sun, November 30, 1932 (reprinted in Special Edition
December 3, 1932), p. 1.

The Vancouver Sun, December 7, 1932.

4
Ibid.
5
The Vancouver Sun, January 27, 1933.
6
Howard Scott made his f i r s t continental tour in the Spring of 1934 and it seems
probable that the formation of the first official Vancouver section coincided with his
lectures and organizational recruitment in Vancouver a t that time.
.(
Technocracy Digest, I, September, 1934, p. 1.
8
Technocracy Digest, September 1934, p. 5.
9
Ibid., p. 1.
lo
The official study course had been announced in March of 1934 and chapters
were issued initially in mimeographed form, "the f i r s t 16 of an eventual 22 were
completed by the end of the year ."
Elsner, p. 120.

Technocracy Digest, November, 1934, p. 10. Also, Technocracy Digest,

December, 1934, p. 12. and, Technocracy Digest, January, 1935, p. 9.

Elsner, p. 120.

Technocracy Digest, February, 1935, p. 1.

Ibid., p. 22.

Technocracy Digest, March, 1935, p. 1.

Ibid.

Technocracy Digest, May, 1935, p. 3.

Technocracy Digest, June, 1935, p. 1.

Ibid., p. 24.

Technocracy Digest, July 1935, p. 1.

Tolman, p. 130.

Technocracy Digest, August, 1935, p. 6.

Ibid.

Elsner, pp. 115, 124, 127,. and Benson, p. 51.

Elsner, p. 122.
 Ibid.

Technocracy Digest, November, 1935, p. 1.

Technocracy Digest, September, 1935, p. 2.

"A Tip to New Members," Technocracy Digest, November, 1935, p. 22.

Ibid.

Technocracy Digest, December, 1936, p. 18.

Letter to Harold Loeb from Charles Bonner, as quoted by Elsner, p. 101.

Elsner, p. 108.

.
A. W. Jones, Life, Liberty and Propertx (New York: Octagon Books Inc , 1964).

Ibid., p. 308.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Benson, p. 49.

Technocracy Digest, February, 1936, p. 23.

Ibid.

Technocracy Digest, November, 1936, p. 14.

Ibid., p. 15.

Ibid.

Technocracy Digest, January, 1936, p. 2.

Ibid., p. 5.

Technocracy Digest, October, 1936, pp. 10-11.

Ibid., p. 15.

Ibid., p. 1.

Technocracy Digest, December, 1936, p. 1.

Ibid.

Technocracy Digest, January, 1937, p. 1.

Technocracy Digest, April, 1937, p. 1.

54 The figures a r e from a number of reports in Technocracy Digest over several
months.
 Technocracy Study Course, (l934), p. 204.

Technocracy Digest, October, 1937, p. 1.

Technocracy Digest, January, 1938, p. 1.

Ibid.

Technocracy Digest, December, 1937, p. 3.

Elsner, p. 123.

The Technocrat, January, 1939, p. 14.

The Technocrat, December, 1938, pp. 3-5.

Elsner, pp. 129-130.

Interview with a former Technocrat.

Ibid.

Technocracy, series A No. 13, August,

Elsner, p. 215.

Telegram from Howard Scott to W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of

Canada. (copyin this writer's possession.)

69 Ibid.

70 Elsner, p. 216.

Ibid.

72 Ibid.
73 Total Conscription! Your Questions Answered, New York: Technocracy Inc.,
October, 1942. p. inside cover.
74 Interview with a former Technocrat.
75
Interview with a former Technocrat.
76 .,
Trends, Vancouver: Canadians For Victory Committee, 1942, Pamphlet No. 1
p. 1 2 .
77
Ibid., pp. 12 and 22.
 84

CHAPTER EIGHT

TOTAL CONSCRIPTION

The start of the Total Conscription program in July, 1940, and the consequent

ban on the Canadian movement have already been noted. The summary slogan of the

program was :

.. . Technocracy proposes that the governments of the United States and Canada
shall conscript the Men, Machines, Material and Money of their nations - with
national service from all and profits to none.'

The program was described as a "total mobilization'!, which Technocracy's 'scientific7

studies found to be the only way in which the war could be won. The "stress of total

warf' and the "impact of peaceT'were said to compel this program. "Conflicting private

and group interests must be submerged and replaced by compulsory national service. "

The main parts of the proposal were as follows:

1. Conscription of all citizens between the ages of 18 and 65.

2 . The nationalization of all business and industry and correspondingly the

"suspension of profitsf'.

3 . The centralization of both economic and political (including military)

power. That is, all state, county, and local governments to be eliminated.

4. All foreign language communication media and organizations to be

suppressed.

5. All liquor outlets to be closed.

The program would be in effect for the duration of the war and for six months after-

wards. Essentially, the thrust of the proposal was to install a slightly modified

Technate. The model of the Technological Army was updated and altered to apply

directly to the wartime situation.

While Technocracy was later to stress that this program was completely

divorced from their "social programv for a Technate, and simply a "patriotic" plan
for winning the war, there were strong grounds for suspicion. In the first official

description of the program in July of 1940, Scott said:

The Continental defense program of Technocracy is an emergency transitional

-
device to usher in the timely arrival in an orderly manner and by efficient
 means - the new social order, the new design for living that this country and
this continent must possess. 3
This reads much more like a way of instituting Technocracy's goal of a Technate than
a temporary way of facilitating the war effort. In 1941, the effects of war on the
economy were seen as contributing to the internal contradictions of the Price System

and speeding up its rate of progress towards the "inevitable collapset'. In a general
mailing to the membership, CHQ claimed:

Events of the past 18 months have demonstrated conclusively that once again
Technocracy is correct. Every long term trend previously indicated has been
greatly accelerated by the effect of the war, and therefore, a s predicted by
Technocracy, America1s Date With Destiny has been confirmed 4
[underlined in original].
With the entry of the U. S. A. into the war, the importance of the program and
the immediacy of its relevance were felt even more strongly throughout the movement.
Following Pearl Harbour, Scott wrote to President Roosevelt placing at his disposal

"the entire personnel and equipment of Technocracy Inc. on the North American con-

tinentft.5 The telegram was dispatched on December 7th, 1941. Then on the 31st of
December came the move that gave added weight to the queries about the meaning and

intent of the July 1940 statement. A press release was issued by CHQ to all sections
of Technocracy Inc. for immediate release through all channels of communication
available to them. The headline of the release read: TOTAL WAR STRATEGY

DEMANDED DIRECTOR GENERAL OF DEFENSE NEEDED TECHNOCRACY URGES

PRESIDENT CALL HOWARD SCOTT. The text of the statement continued:

Technocracy puts forward, with full realization of the gravity and enormity of
of the task, the name of the one man in America who has demonstrated the
knowledge, the vision, and the capacity to install and execute the strategy of
total war for the defense of America - Howard Scott.

For an "educational and researchu organization with "no assumption of power theoryu
this series of developments seemed a little incongruous. In the document, Total

Conscription - Your Questions Answered, the Technocrats had reiterated that the
program was not a Technate, nor intended to lead to one. In the document, however,

we also find:
The men who do the fighting are in the national service now and Technocracy
 contends that such national service must become the permanent [italics added]
national duty of all North America. 7

It does not require a great deal of reading between the lines of the above quota-

tions to raise a very strong suspicion in our minds that the basic thrust of the Total

Conscription program was toward the institution of a Technate under the guise of

another name. If the program, and Howard Scott's suggested role in it, seemed

rather grandiose for so small and insignificant a movement, this is in part an indica-

tor of the sectarian isolation of the movement at this point. The movement's focus on

l'educationl' versus "activism" had allowed it to maintain a kind of Technocratic revolu-

tionary 'purity' and had saved it from the various kinds of ideologically and organiza-

tionally sidetracking alliances that had characterized the Continental Committee. On

the other hand, the maintainance of uncompromised revolutionary principles in a

non-revolutionary social situation resulted in a sect-like isolation from ongoing social

affairs. The Total Conscription program was to be a major (though temporary) shift

away from the more passive, inward-focussed stance. In terms of the typology in

Chapter Six, the goals remained revolutionary while the means of realizing them

became far more "active" than before. The mobilization of Technocratic skills and

resources was impressive, and to outside observers both astounding and, in some

cases, a little frightening.

The December, 1941, CHQ press release to all sections had indicated that all

possible channels of communication were to be utilized. The response was immediate

and impressive. Wherever Technocracy Inc . sections existed, billboards, press

releases, radio broadcasts, and full and one-half page newspaper advertisements

started to appear. Scott later claimed that 14,000,000 copies of full-page advertise-

ments, hundreds of thousands of leaflets, and radio broadcasts in almost every major

population center on the Continent, advocated the program.8 Scott said the advertis-

ing cost was in excess of $50,000.~ Publisher's Weekly estimated $100,000 as nearer
the cost; they also claimed that the advertisements had appeared in 100 newspapers
10
and that time had been purchased from 92 radio stations. Public reaction was

massive and uniformly critical. As a result, the Technocrats' position shifted slightly
and an advertisement carried by the New York Times on March 8, 1942, deleted all
references to Scott as Director of Defense and intensified the movementls anti-alien

position by substituting, "America Must Liquidate Its Pro-Fascists At Home . .. I

11
Before It Can Defeat Its Fascist Enemies Abroad1'. (Previous statements had identi-

fied various l1aliensl1as a primary source of pro-Fascist sentiment. ) Scott also

indicated that the proposal that he be made Director of Defense was a consequence of
local section initiative rather than an inherent part of the program as formulated by
CHQ. l 2 This was, of course, quite at variance with the facts. Various commenta-
tors were uniform in their surprise at the active and apparently affluent revival of a
movement commonly understood to have died in 1933, and were in basic agreement in
their judgement that in its new form i t was nothing short of "native American Fascisml1.
It must be remembered that the 1932-1933 phase of the movement had been a
badly disorganized affair, and while the implications of technological elitism had been
present, no really coherent organization and ideology had been obvious. It should also
be remembered that the media treatment of the early movement had in the end lburiedl
the movement not only by criticism but by massive doses of ridicule as well.

Now it was back, an apparently highly organized, cohesive movement, com-

plete with grey uniforms, salutes, the Monad symbol, fleets of grey cars and motor-

cycles (also an occasional motorboat and an airplane), and an enigmatic leader

referred to by members as the flChieP1. Its program combined appeals to almost

every prejudice that had ever stimulated a movement, with almost total disregard for
ideological consistency. It was anti-Democratic, anti-Communist, anti-Fascist . It
combined the Fascist attributes of high evaluation of efficiency, discipline, and
elitism with a program of militant anti-Fascism, at home and abroad. It appealed as

well to the racists with a nationalistic America First 100 per cent Americanism.
This aspect of the program included a consolidation by force of the entire continental
area, including parts of South America, and the 'lannihilation of minoritiesf1that might
protest such a plan. In addition, all foreign language publications were to be closed

down, as were vendors of alcoholic beverages. Populist sentiment was appealed to

with an anti-banker, anti-big business position. Throughout the ideology, the paradox

was to be found of a positivist reification of science and technology combined with a

pervasive anti-intellectualism.'3 Technocracy had always condemned the activities
of more active movements as misguided, inasmuch as they were based upon a "psy-

c h ~ l o g i c a approach.
l~~ In essence, the Technocratic argument was a simplified
naturalistic one. That is, social change is produced by changes in Technology, not by
changes in thought inspired by rational (or irrational) argument. At the same time
there were hints to the members that when the time was appropriate Technocracy

might make use of a "mass psychological approach1' in order to facilitate the institu-
tion of a Technate. This was only to occur if and when Technocracy had recruited the

technological elite necessary to "take over the controlsl1. As one ex-Technocrat

recalled, the idea at the time was that "if we feel that the whole setup will go down
the drain within a period of anywhere between three and six months and if we do have
this 3% of the educated population behind us, then we could turn on the tap for a mass
emotional appea11f.14 The Total Conscription program with its massive publicity
directed at an extremely wide and disparate social base seems to have been such an

appea1.
In any event, the massive critical response to the Technocrats forced some
modification in the program. The proposal for Scott as Director of Defense was dropped

and the temporary nature of the program was stressed. The distinction between

Technocracyls "social program" and Total Conscription was continually asserted,

although not demonstrated. Technocrats were simply loyal citizens, they claimed,
who, until the war was over, had no other objectives beyond the most efficient termina-
tion of hostilities. An internal communication to the membership, however, implied

that no setback of any sort had occurred and that everything was, in effect, going
according to plan.
America is in a state of Transition, and Technocracy understands the forces
underlying the situation. Technocracy also knows the probabilities of its out-
come. Technocracy plays the role at present of an observer and an interpreter
-
This declaration the call for a strategy of total war headed by Howard Scott -
was made at this time as a contribution toward the efficient total mobilization
 of America in winning the war and the peace for America. The historical
significance of Technocracy's position will not be apparent immediately. 15

The Total Conscription program was to remain the primary concern of the

movement until shortly after the end of the war. That this program had been but a
lightly disguised move to install a permanent Technate is a matter of observation and

inference. While it is plausible that rank and file membership may have so perceived
the program (that is, as a way of instituting the Technate), it is also clear that such

an objective was never openly stated. Quite the contrary, in fact, for it was continually
denied officially, while at the same time ambiguous statements like the one quoted

above were circulating internally, As a consequence, the failure of the program was
not defined as any kind of failure of prophecy, nor was it allowed to be construed a s
any sort of challenge to the movementf s main analysis and program. In fact quite the
opposite occurred as the North American governments brought under military forms
of organization more and more institutional areas in response to wartime conditions
(for example, rationing, price controls, and government controls on production priori-
ties). The Technocrats interpreted this as vindication of their claims about the value
of a state run a s a "Technological Armytt.
The war itself was used as an explanation of the earlier, more important
prophecy about the inevitable collapse of the Price System "prior to 1940'I. It was
argued (and this view i s not unique to the Technocrats) that only the economic stimu-
lus of the war, and the willingness of citizens to accept temporarily changed economic
relations in order to facilitate the war effort, enabled the Price System to (a) survive
(the Technocratic version), or (b) emerge out of the lingering Depression of the 1930's
(the more widely held view). This argument may of course be regarded either as an
explanation or as a rationalization of the failure of prophecy. In any event we have yet

to explain this major fluctuation of the movement from the relatively passive to the
more active mode of operation, and the matter of "prophecy failedwmay be relevant.
It is not possible to account for this program in any significant sense inasmuch

as the decision for its implementation seems to have been almost solely that of Howard
Scott, and data are simply not available on his motivation. We can only speculate on
some of the more plausible interpretations.
ecy of Price System collapse by 1940, and saw the Total Conscription program as a

means of avoiding the possible ill effects to the movement of such a failure. In this
context, then, the increased activity and commitment demanded of participants in
carrying the message to the public was a means of maintaining, or possibly increasing,
movement cohesion. It must be remembered that the prediction of collapse by 1940 !

was central to the movement's existence prior to 1939. The Technocratsv extremely
limited role in effecting changes was based on the inevitability of this v'collapsev.
Such an interpretation may, however, be excessively elaborate and may impute far

too much cunning and manipulation to Scottls behaviour. It may have been simply that
Scott considered the domestic pressures created by the crisis of a major war were

fertile ground for a resurgence of Technocracy. It has also been suggested that the
most likely explanation for this "dynamic phase" of the movement (as the Technocrats
called it) was that someone secretly contributed a considerable amount of money to the

cause.16 While it seems that the reasons for this "dynamic phase" must remain
matters of speculation, we are in a more favourable position with regard to the effects
of the p r o p am.
Despite the success, the failure, the logic or illogic of the program, the move-

ment that had been publicly dead for ten or more years, and that had legitimized its

limited participation in the larger political arena with a millennia1 "inevitability"

concept, as well as a self-definition of the movement as "educationaln, had now set
for itself the precedent of widespread political activity. This new self-concept was
clearly exemplified in an internal policy statement in 1943.
Technocracy is now participating in social change. Technocracy's work is
primarily educational. But during the past year this educational work has
been pitched into a dynamic phase. Technocracy has become an active partici-
pant in the social conflict by urgently presenting a blueprint of national opera-
tions for the United States and Canada, here and now. That blueprint is Total
Conscription. By this means Technocracy has introduced a change in the basic
strategy of this Organization, and during the past year the membership has put
this strategy into full operation. Canadian members will be in a position to
observe this change from the policy in 1940. Technocracy has developed to
the point where it can now execute nationwide tactical maneuvers in an organ-
and disciplined manner. CHQ states unequivocally that this has forced a
 recognition of Technocracy a s an organized factor in future events on this
continent. l7

It was to be extremely difficult to reconcile this precedent with attempts to

revert to a non-activist "ed~cational'~

organization. The movement's concept of its

role in effecting social change had previously been centered on ideas appropriate for

a small-scale movement of limited resources and limited appeal to the wider public.

Consequently its role was defined as limited. It was not to facilitate the breakdown

of the established order. That was to come a s the inevitable consequence of irrecon-

cilable contradictions inherent in the order itself. Technocracy was not to be a mass

movement - only a small biological elite was capable of comprehending its analysis.

Its primary role was education and research with occasional ambiguous implications

of possible direct action when the time was right. The precedent that the Total

Conscription program set was, however, one of direct action in the political affairs

of the continent. A gradual re-decline into the position of an obscure educational

organization patiently awaiting the milliennium was a prospect that was soon to

generate a major internal conflict that would split the movement, in a manner parallel

to the early conflict between Technocracy Inc . and the Continental Committee.

We will deal first with the years immediately following the war, with the focus

again on the Vancouver area sections and the events preceding this conflict,
 NOTES
Total Conscription! Your Questions Answered, p. inside cover.

Tbid., p. 5.

Technocracy, July, 1940, p. 12-14.

Technocracy Inc. , General Mailing, April 30, 1941. (mimeographed)

The Nation, XIX, March 23, 1942, p. 28.

Technocracy Inc. , General Mailing, December 31, 1941. (mimeographed)

Total Conscription! Your Questions Answered, pp. 12 -13.

Benson, p. 55.

Ibid.

"Technocracy Rears Its Head Again, l' The Publishers' Weekly, CXLI,
April 25, 1942, p. 1578.

l2 Faulkner, p. 58.
l3
The term anti-intellectualism in this context requires some elaboration, given
the Technocrats1 positivistic view of science. We would normally expect a positivistic
view of knowledge to be linked to a highly favourable image of the creators of knowledge,
that is, intellectuals. With the Technocrats, however, quite the reverse tendency can
be observed. In large part this i s due to their definition of the "techniciansf1 (this term
in their vocabulary being, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with intellectuals)
a s the most appropriate revolutionary 'class1. The continued failure of the "technicians1'
to develop a significant revolutionary consciousness resulted quite naturally in some
disillusionment on the part of the Technocrats. Consequently, while their view of
science remained highly favourable, their view of scientists became derogatory. Intellec-
tuals, whatever their field of interest, a r e seen primarily a s tools o r accomplices of the
ruling classes. The definition of intellectuals a s misguided o r falsely conscious would
most properly be described a s anti-intellectuals rather than a s anti-intellectualism.
Nevertheless, there a r e numerous occasions in the Technocracy literature where the
distinction seems to have been lost and the value of intellectual work itself is seen a s
questionable. In the Technocracy Study Course, for instance, there i s one fairly
obvious example of this tendency. The author is deriding the reactionary views of
Ortega y Gasset, and says; l'Professor Ortega y Gasset i s a Jesuit Professor of
Philosophy at the University of Madrid, and, a s such, s o far a s i s publicly known, has
never done anything of more importance in his entire life than to read books, talk, and
write more books ." Technocracy Study Course, p. 205.

l4 Interview with an ex-Technocrat.

l5 Technocracy h c . , General Mailing, January 31, 1942, (mimeographed) as
quoted by Elsner, p. 231.
l6
Other students of the movement have considered this question and been unable
to find any evidence of the existence of any such benefactor. I am inclined to doubt the
'rich benefactor' view, but given the secrecy that the Technocrats maintain about their
affairs, evidence for either view is simply not available.
l7 .
Technocracy Inc , General Mailing, December, 1943, (mimeographed) as
quoted by Elsner, p. 241.
 CHAPTER NINE

VANCOUVER AFTER THE WAR

With the lifting of the ban on Technocracy in Canada, only Vancouverts Techno-
cracy Digest resumed publication. During the period in which the ban was in effect, the
Vancouver Technocrats had advocated the Total Conscription program through their
Canadians for Victory Committee, and with the resumption of regular activities they

moved full force into widespread advocacy of the program. As the war moved toward
a close, the Digest articles and editorials increasingly stressed the necessity of Total
Conscription in order to facilitate a return to peace time conditions. Throughout these
writings there is a continual ambiguity as to whether acceptance of Total Conscription

necessitated eventual acceptance of a Technate. Two key social problems were identi-
fied (first a s potential and then a s prophecy fulfilled) as ones that only Total Conscrip-
tion could solve. The first was unemployment, and the second, lack of housing facili-
ties. Labor groups and war veterans were identified as appropriate targets for the
message, and editorials and "open letters" were addressed to these groups. The CCF
was seen as in potential competition for this audience, and a series of articles was
devoted to debunking this party's program.' In June of 1945, the Digest came out with

a new answer to the question of how the Total Conscription-Technate was to be insti-
tuted. It was suggested that a national referendum be held on the question. "The job
ahead", readers were told, "is not the planning of a coup df6tat of technical men in
key places, or any sort of insurrection o r revolution ... Technocracy Inc. stresses
the national referendum as an orderly means of bringing about the Technate. "' The
idea of a referendum did not, however, become integrated into the Technocratic ideology.
Mention of it in the Technocracy literature was to be extremely r a r e . As time went on,

mention of the Total Conscription program also became less frequent, as the program

was gradually abandoned . 3

In September, 1954, the Digest had initiated a section entitled "Notes on Organi-
zation", which appeared with fair regularity over the next few years, and which gives
1 us additional information about local Technocratic activities. From the time of it8
initiation until April of 1946, the column dealt mainly with matters of ideology and
organizational forms. Then, reports of Technocracy speaking tours became the main
items, and the number and range over the next two years is impressive. The reports

include activities in both countries, and while i t is probable that U. S. activities may
have been under-reported, it seems, nevertheless, that the organizational focus was
largely on Canada. The tours seem to have had two goals: consolidation and expan-
sion in areas where the movement was already established (Pacific Northwest and
Canadian Prairies) and secondly, expansion to areas of eastern Canada. The follow-

ing maps give some idea of the scope and geographic focus of these tours.
The first diagram (Figure 9:l) indicates centers where Technocracy Inc. had
FIG Q:I TFCHNOCRACY SECTIONS IN CANADA AND U.S.A.

ALASKA

1
A NADA

'CALGAW **
SEATTLE ------_- .REGINA

I FRANCISCO
U. S . A .

.
I
sections established in the 1946-1948 period. As the Digest reported Canadian sec-

tions in some detail, the diagram is probably fairly accurate with reference to

Canada. With reference to the U . S. A. , however, data a r e available only on the

Great Lakes area (from the journal Great,

and therefore West

Coast sections (California and Washington State), which we know from other sources

to have been numerous, a r e not shown. The distribution of sections in Canada shows

clearly that British Columbia was the major center of Canadian Technocratic activity.

The existence of sections in the East, for example Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and

St. John's, was a post-war development. We have noted previously that the 1938-

1940 period is widely accepted (both by members and outside observers) as the time

when, in terms of both membership and activity, the movement was at its peak. The

existence of 43 sections in Canada alone (and probably a comparable num3er in the

U. S. A.) demonstrates that despite the inevitable interruptions of the war period, and

the government ban in Canada, Technocracy was still a movement of some strength.

The following diagram (Figure 9:2) indicates the itinerary of the 1946 Trans-

Canada tour of Technocracy speaker, A . A. Milligan. This tour encompassed approxi-

mately 45 points in canada4 and at least 14 U . S. A. centers.

FIG. 9:2 MlLLlGAN TOUR - MARCH 1946

-.-._._ -
 The next diagram (Figure 9 3 ) shows the points at which E . L. Fearman spoke,

in what was billed as the second Trans-Canada tour. The frequency of these tours is
indicated by the fact that this second tour commenced on the West Coast in May 1946,
at which time A. A. Milligan was on the return lap from the East Coast on the first
Trans-Canada tour. In addition to these major tours, there were a number of local
ones on a smaller scale. The amount of overlap on these small tours is even more

apparent. That is to say, the number of touring speakers 'in motion1 at any one time

P-h FIG. 913 FEARMAN TOUR - MAY 1946

I
was substantial. Figure 9:4 gives Edith Gerald1s West Coast tour, which extended

from May 1st to May 17th. Later in May, Reo McCaslin made a short tour over some
of the same major points (Figure 9:5). The tours were not, of course, the only indices
of Technocratic activity in this period. The first issue of Technews, an internal pub-

lication (for members only) of the Vancouver section, included an annual report of the
year 1946. Local Technocrats, it was reported, had painted 30 cars in regulation

colours over the ~ e a r . \ o hundred and twenty-one public meetings had been held
FIG. 9:4 GERALD TOUR - MAY 1946 FIG. 915 McCASLlN TOUR - MAY 1946
 6
I with a total attendance of 17,326 people, 10,792 of whom were non-members. This
amounts to something over four meetings per week, at which approximately 60% of

attenders were non-members . Six hundred and seventy-six membership applications

were received overall. Finally, Technocracy literature to the value of $1,949.72 was

sold during 1946.~ It was also reported that the New Westminster sections had a 15-

minute radio broadcast weekly on radio station CKMO (Monday at 7:15).'

The 1947 tour season started in Vancouver in February with speaker L. E.

Frazeur. H i s tour lasted for a month and covered the points indicated in Figure 9:6.

th FIG.9:6 FRAZEUR TOUR

\. FEBRUARY 1947
\.
\.
\. \.
\

Thomae Porter toured the British Columbia interior in February ae well (Feb. 14-15),

covering slightly different points (Figure 9:7). In March, A. A. Milligan commenced

his second Trans-Canada tour in Vancouver; Figure 9:8 showe hie itinerary, Thomas

Porter, after a few week8 pause, resumed his lecturing in British Cohmbia (eee

Figure 9:8),
FIG.9:7 PORTER TOUR
. FEBRUARY 1947
\
 FIG. 9:9 PORTER TOUR
\. MARCH-APRIL 1947
\.
\.
\.
\

May 4th saw Milton Wildfong on a British Columbia Interior tour, visiting the towns

shown in Figure 9: 10; in June, Vic Templeton covered a similar area (see Figure 9:ll).

The Digest reported two other small tours in this period, one in the eastern United

States and the other on the Canadian Prairies.

The final and most important tour of 1947 was the Howard Scott visit to Seattle

and Vancouver late in June. This was Scottls first talk in Canada since 1939. The

tour was also the occasion of the first major Technocracy motorcade of the "grey Fleetf!

This first major effort, in what was to be described a s the "Symbolization" program,

consisted of a motorcade from Los Angeles to Vancouver, called "Operation Columbiav1.

In the Vancouver forum 5,000 people paid the $1.00 attendance fee to hear Scott speak.
The local press devoted a large amount of space to the event, and some questions were
raised about the meaning of the grey motorcade and grey uniforms. Scottls response was:

I wonder how you a r e going to feel when 50 times that number rolls ins9
 i
i
i
'1
VANCOUVER 1
j.
\.
L.
. >
\. 't
'.A

FIG.9:IO WILDFONG TOUR - MAY 1947 FIG. 9111 TEMPLETON TOUR - JUNE 1947
 Considering the scope of the tour in question, this statement indicates con-

siderable optimism about future growth. Hundreds of cars, trucks, and trailers, all

regulation grey, from all over the Pacific Northwest, participated. An old school
bus, repainted and refitted with sleeping and office facilities, a two-way radio, and a
public address system, impressed observers. A huge war surplus searchlight mounted
on a truck bed was included, and grey-painted motorcycles acted as parade marshalls.
A small grey aircraft, with a Monad symbol on its wings, flew overhead. All this was
recorded by the Technocrats on a 16-mm 900-foot colour film.'' In Vancouver, the
Technocrats anticipated significant membership increases. The membership com-
mittee devised a system whereby, following Scott's speech, they would "be able to
sign up applicants at the rate of over 16 per minute or approximately 500 applicants
in half an hour1'." The July issue of Vancouver's Technews reported that prior to

Scott's visit 92,000 handbills had been mailed (it was claimed, to every household in
Vancouver), 1,500 posters had been put up, 800 bumper strips distributed, six bill-
boards rented, regular spot announcements bought on two radio stations, and finally a

half-page newspaper advertisement run to climax the publicity." The education

committee was reported busy preparing study course leaders for the "expected hordes
of new member^^.'^ While no figures were ever released about the actual number of
recruits, the July issue of Technews (published three weeks after the visit) reported
that 17 applicants were interviewed per day during this three-week period.'4
Various issues of Technews give several other indications of local activities

throughout 1947. One demonstration of the level of membership commitment to the

movement is contained in the July issue, On page 4, we read:

You remember in our May issue we mentioned the drive being launched by the
Board of Governors of 12349-1 among the ucction membership to
balance of $19,000 owing on our 8HQ building? Well, we dood it!
membership meeting on June 6th, the balance still required at
raised among those present, l5
While we have no way of definitely ascertaining the actual number of members in thie
section, it seems highly unlikely that it ever exceeded several hundred, which make8
the raising of $19,000 in one month a significant index of conei&rable commitment to
the movement.

At the same time, the Port Moody section was starting to build its own head-

quarters on the main street in Port ~ o o d ~ The

. ' ~entire cost of this SHQ (Section

Headquarters) was carried by the section membership, through the method of selling

shares to its members. It is unlikely that this section had more than 50-75 members
17
at the time.

Another indication of participation came from the Vancouver section, which

reported that their suggestion box had received so far (over several months) 455

suggestions .I8 The annual report gives some additional data on various activities.

Percentages a r e computed, for instance, on the l'functioningl' of members. While it

is not totally clear, this seems to mean participation on various committees. Thus
"the committees had a busy year too, with 40% of the total membership functioning in
19
some capacity1'. It was reported that 87 public meetings were held at which, on the

average, 55.3% of the audience were n o n - ~ e c h n o c r a t s . ~This

~ is an impressive
number of meetings if we note that it approaches two meetings per week, excluding

major holiday periods. By way of contrast, and somewhat in anticipation of a later

section of the paper, we would note that today this same section holds approximately

15 public meetings a year, and the percentage of non-members attending such meet-

ings rarely exceeds 2-3%. Continuing with the report, we find that 19 more cars were

painted regulation grey and that 10 motorcades were organized.2' In addition, four

Finally, a total of 4,355

more billboards were constructed, bringing the total to 1 4 . ~ ~

l1contact mailings" (Technocracy pamphlets sent to non-members) were sent out during

the year .23 The suggested New Year's Resolutions did not, however, contain any hint

of complacency. For instance:

1. More non-members at meetings.

2 . More house meetings organized.
3. More speakers, promotors in clubs, etc.
4. More names for contact mailings, either individuals or groups.
5 . More suggestions via the suggestion box. 24

These resolutions a r e some indication of the focus on expansion and recruit-

ment, and although we have noted that the above data indicate rather considerable
activity by comparison with the earlier information on activities of 1946, there was a

clear decrease in both intensity and scope of movement affairs. A list of "functional

prerequisites" for members, published in March of 1946, gives some indication of

their current image of the "good Technocrat".

How do you rate as a functional member anyway? We realize that it is not easy
to assess the functioning of anyone, but on the basis of ten points for each of the
following, where would you stand?
1. Are your dues paid to the end of 1946?
2. Are you active on a committee?
3 . Are you making a regular monthly pledge?
4. Are you selling tickets for meetings?
5. Do you subscribe to the publications?
6. Do you sell literature to contacts?
7. Do you bring contacts to SHQ?
8. Are you attending a study class?
9. Do you take a shift at SHQ?
10. Do you have a grey suit? 25

Clearly the ideal member spent a great deal of his time engaged in Technocratic

activities. The annual reports, personal interviews with current and ex-Technocrats,

and the estimation of other students of the movement, make it clear that a good number

of members in this period (as well as in 1938-1940) did in fact live up to, and indeed

surpassed, this ideal.

In 1948 there was a further decrease in activities, particularly in terms of

tours. Only two were reported locally: "Operation Vancouver", a small motorcade

with speeches in Vancouver and Victoria, by Reo McCaslin, and "Operation Golden

Gate", on July 4th in California, with Scott as speaker. This latter was intended to be

larger than the previous "Operation Columbia". In all probability it involved about 400

grey cars, and 2,500 Technocrats participated .26 Vancouver publications did not list

any of the smaller local tours that had been so much a part of the previous two years1

activity. The section in the Digest on organizational matters appeared with less

regularity, and when it was included, dealt mainly with t'symbolizationll projects, and

not tours. The April 1948 issue of Technews reported, with tentative approval, the

legitimation of the Penticton section, for limited proselytization. On page 9 we find:

Lack of high pressure in sign-ups was intended and will prove itself a more
healthful approach than what so frequently was the custom. 27
 106

Further on this logic is detailed more fully.

There were no sign-ups [after a public meeting], but we have learned the
futility of putting pressure on people to sign up at public meetings and then
chasing them for dues, finally to drop them for non-payment. Instead, we
decided to let the ones who turn out for the meetings figure it out for them-
selves and if they are not prepared to do something about it, they are not the
material for which we are searching. 28

Clearly, recruitment had declined since systems were being prepared to handle 500

applicants every half hour just a year before.

 NOTES
I
1
See, for instance, Technocracy Digest, February, March, April, 1945, and
January 1946.
2 Technocracy Digest, June, 1945, p. 48.
3
Mention of this program continues in the Digest until late into 1946 and then
simply ceases to be talked about. The program was revived again briefly in 1950 but
on a very small scale.

The data for this tour have been gathered from issues of the Digest a s well as
from various internally distributed papers. Owing to both haphazard reporting on the
Technocrats' part and the possibility that some reports have been missed, it is quite
possible that the tour was even more extensive than the map would indicate.
5
. .
Technews, I, January, 1947, Vancouver: Technocracy Inc , Sec R. D. 12349. ,
p. 1.
6
Ibid., p. 5.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid., p. 8.
9
Technocracy Digest, August, 1947, p. 50.
lo
Elsner, p. 251. This tour was also noted by Benson who recently viewed the
.
film "Operation Columbia" at the Technocracy Inc CHQ (Central Headquarters),
Benson, p. 57.
l1
Technews, June, 1947, p. 4.

l2 Technews,July,1947,p.2.

l3 Ibid., p. 4.

l4 lbid., p. 4.

l5 Ibid.

l6 Ibid., p. 13.

l7 Interview with an ex-Technocrat.

l8 Technews, November, 1947, p. 9. A sample of the "regulation" suggestion
form i s included in Appendix 2. The 'scientific' emphasis should be noted.
l9
Technews, February, 1948, p. 1.

20 Ibid.

21 hid.

22 Ibid., p. 3.

23 Ibid.
25 Canadian Section News, March, 1946, Vancouver: Technocracy Inc ., Sec.
R.D. l 2 3 4 9 . , p. 3.
26 The Nation, CLXVII, No. 6, (August 7 , 1948), pp. 142-143.

27 Technews9April,1948,p.9.

28 Ibid., p. 16.
 CHAPTER TEN

THE SPLIT OF 1948

CONTRl BUTlNG FACTORS

James C. Davies argues that revolution is most likely to occur "when a pro-

longed period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short

period of sharp reversal".' Without arguing that the internal lrevolutionl in Tech-

nocracy Inc. late in 1948 substantiates Davies' idea, we simply argue that there a r e

some suggestive parallels. We have observed a decline in Technocratic activities

between 1946 and 1947, and an even sharper drop in 1948. The combination of numer-

ous tours (both local and continental), "symbolization" (uniforms, grey cars, air-

planes, motorcycles, parades or "operations", roadside billboards), and active

(and reasonably successful) recruitment during 1946-1947, plus the various other

movement activities noted, justified or substantiated members1 perception of Techno-

cracy a s a ''functioning organization1', actively participating in North American social

affairs .

Our data on 1948 a r e less complete, but we have noted some of the indicators

of a sharp decline. The continued absence in the literature of reports of activities,

while not conclusive, is suggestive of decline, inasmuch as the Technocrats have

never been lax in 'reportingf their successes. The changed definition of meaningful

activity is also a significant contrast. Compared with the activities noted above, by

November of 1948 the following were defined as significant movement advances.

Technocracy Inc. received a Blue Ribbon Award for the participation of Tech-
nocracy sound cars in the Pioneer Day Parade activities at 29 Palms, Cali-
fornia. It is reported that a letter of thanks was received from the Chamber
of Commerce a t 29 Palms, also. A Technocrat who is accepting sound assign-
ments in that area has covered two Parent-Teachers affairs, ..
Later, in a Christmas parade in Canoga Palm, California, it was reported that,

"playing Christmas records in the parade line were two grey c a r s of Technocracy Inc. "?

Similar activities were noted, and in summary the Column concluded: "Besides those

reported, the Co-ordinating Committee of Sound Sequence of 11833-34 has been on the
job at baseball games, teen-age dances, football games, community sings, square

dances, bazaars, parades, folk dances and different civic functions. " In Vancouver
and New Westminster the Technocrats mobilized to assist in the fight against the

serious F r a s e r river flooding of 1948. The "grey fleet" (approximately 100 cars)
was used for transportation, Technocracy Inc. communications equipment was widely

utilized by the Army, and the Technocracy searchlight (the "Big Eye") was brought in

from the U. S. A. The Technocrats were quick to point out that "The Big Eye" was

three times more powerful than any other available. The New Westminster section

hall provided food on a continuous basis for flood workers as well as sleeping space

when needed .=

The Technocrats understandably viewed this project a s a significant demon-

stration of organizational resource3 and efficiency. Nevertheless, the general level

of Technocracy's participation in civic affairs was obviously of a quite different

I

nature. Even fully loyal members must have been aware at some point of the paradox

of a "truly revolutionary movement" that defined groups such as the CCF and the
I
Communist Party as insufficiently radical, at the same time considering significant
I

the presentation to the organization of a "blue ribbonf7and a "letter of thanks" from a

I
I
local Chamber of Commerce.

There were other symptoms of movement decline a s well, an important one

being the relative inactivity of CHQ. No new pamphlets had been issued for some time,

and only three issues of the General Mailing (previously a monthly publication) had

appeared between April 1945 and March 1 9 4 7 . ~ The Total Conscription program had

been the only response to changed social conditions in years, and when that was eventu-

ally abandoned, no new alternative was developed. This program had set a clear

precedent for active participation in continental social affairs, and now the member-

ship was, in effect, expected to revert to a vaguely utopian 17educationalf7

program of

17symbolization"that, as we have seen, tended to degenerate into participation and

assistance in civic holiday parades, PTA meetings, and ladiesTsoftball games. Both

Bensen and Elsner argue that another factor in the eventual confrontation in 1948 was
 that tlOperation Columbia1' and "Operation Golden Gate" brought together for the first

time a large number of Technocrats from various parts of the country, and hence

facilitated discussion and evaluation of the strength and activities of the movement in

various locals. Furthermore, it provided potential dissidents with wider support in

their concerns. 7 Elsner quotes from an interview with a former Technocrat:

It came up casually, imperceptibly . . . I had no idea others were thinking the

same way, I remember meeting .
from Ontario at a picnic . . we got
off away from the others, and gradually felt each other out. Then I got in
touch with others who had been thinking the same way. 8

The llOperationsltwere also an occasion for a number of members to see the "Chieft1

in action, either for the first time in many years, or in many cases, for the first

time. For some the experience was disillusioning.

. . . he now seemed somehow "different". He seemed to be llnervouslt,"afraid

of somethingf1, ltunwilling to participate" in section conferences, to be avoiding
publicity for himself and the organization, and lacking in the elementary co-
ordinating sense necessary for the leader of a large organization.9

The Canadian Technocrats had previously felt that CHQ should have been more

active in responding to the wartime ban, and in the post-war years a new issue had

come to the fore. At various times, Canadian Technocrats reported difficulty cross-

ing the border into the U. S. A. It was never clear that there was any actual ban on

their so doing, or how extensive the difficulty was; nevertheless, CHQ made no

attempt to deal with the issue in any way, and this inactivity became further cause for

dissent and questioning of affairs at CHQ.

One other factor contributed to internal dissent: the Price System had not

collapsed, and predictions about the expected demise were becoming more and more

vague.

I As we have seen, quite specific predictions were made during the Depression,

I the first giving 1937 as the date, and the second prophesying the collapse a s occurring

"prior to 1940". The advent of the Second World War was then interpreted as saving

the Price System economically. By 1947-1948, however, the prophecy as to the

timing of the inevitable demise was imprecise, to say the least. The Great Lakes
Technocrat of March-April, 1948, provided a characteristic answer. It may have

been unintentional, but the manner of posing the question suggested weariness. The

question read: "About how much longer does Technocracy believe the Price System

will c ~ n t i n u e ? " ' ~And the answer was given: "The Price System on this continent

cannot continue much longer. Just how much longer no man knows. What is a year

o r two in the life of a social system? it is only a moment. " I 1 The answer continued

with a standard Technocracy analysis and then said: "Inevitably, it [the Price system]

must be replaced by a totally new system. . . d 2 Interestingly, the t e r m "inevitablyy"

had, with the change in context over the years, lost the original connotation of

"imminent necessity" and came closer to meaning, certain in some distant future.

The culmination of the various factors discussed above came in 1948 when a

major internal conflict (and eventual schism) developed in the movement. The details

of this schism a r e important in that two conflicting groups eventually polarized their

opposition, the dissident group being expelled, and the remaining Technocracy Inc .

committing itself even further to sectarian isolation and educational utopianism.

The original nucleus of the dissenting group consisted of the editor of the

Great Lakes Technocrat (one of the more sophisticated and innovative of the journals),

the assistant director of organization from CHQ, and directors of sections from

Toronto, Chicago, and Detroit. They met in Buffalo, N.Y., on August 11, 1948 and
13
agreed among themselves to recruit those of like mind across the country. As a

result of their effort, an expanded meeting was held in Chicago in September and a

proposal for "The Expansion of Technocracy" was drawn up and signed by 25 partici-
14
pants. Of these, seven o r eight were from the Vancouver area. The elements of

the proposal were as follows:

1. Annual elections by membership of Continental Board of Governors.

2 . Minutes of B. 0. G . meetings to be kept and a majority of the board to be
required to vote on all items.
3. Annual financial reports to be issued.
4. Names and occupations of present Directors to be disclosed.
5. Full time CHQ Field Representatives to be appointed.
6. Monthly general meetings to be resumed.
7. Steps to be taken immediately to resolve border crossing d i f f i c u l t i e ~ . ' ~
 The framers of these proposals sent a five-man delegation to Scott with the

demand that he ratify it and then release it to the membership in a General Mailing

from CHQ. After two fruitless meetings with Scott and a third attempt where he

refused even to speak with them, it became clear to the delegation that he had no

intention of acceding to their proposals. The delegates returned home and informed

Scott by letter that they now felt it necessary to seek general support from the mem-

bership as a whole. Scott then unilaterally expelled from Technocracy Inc. all of the

signers of the document, a s well as at least.75 others who for some reason could be

defined a s fellow conspirators. In a suit that came before the U. S. Supreme Court in

early December, 100 of those expelled claimed that Scott's action was illegal. They

also charged Scott with displaying "an unquenchable thirst for ~ o w e r "and receiving

vexcessive compensation in the guise of an expense a c ~ o u n t " . ' ~ The Court upheld

their claim and ordered their reinstatement .I7 While versions of the conflict appeared

in a couple of issues of eastern Technocratic journals, no mention at all was made in

Vancouver's Technocracy Digest. A report from CHQ (unsigned) was sent, however,

individually to the home address of each member of Technocracy Inc. It was entitled:

"Preliminary Report of Treachery, Conspiracy, and sabotagef1.'' The lkonspiracyn,

it said, had been developing for two years and at the appropriate moment had been

smashed by the forthright action of CHQ. The affair was said to have but one purpose -
"the disruption and destruction of Technocracy Inc. " The report reads in part:

Their claim that they wished to promote and expand Technocracy Inc. is a
sheer tissue of lies; for, if one of their proposals alone were instituted,
namely, the annual election of the Continental Board of Governers from the
membership, it would create a continuous political struggle for power within
.
the organization. .

And further: "CHQ must of necessity originate the policy and control the strategy of

the Organization in its entirety.. . '' The final paragraph hints at a larger conspiracy

by unnamed hostile elements external to the movement, and concludes: WHQ asks the

membership of Technocracy Inc. to close its ranks and clean house, for there i s no

room in Technocracy for traitors. "

In Vancouver a hearing was held to consider the actions of local Technocrats
who had attended the Chicago meeting. The daughter of one of them, herself a member

a t the time, recalls that the 'accused' were not allowed to speak on t h e i r own behalf

and were then expelled.19 The conflict continued at a high emotional and low intellec-

tual plane f o r several months, primarily in the eastern part of the continent. The

dissidents failed to gain majority support for their program, although they claimed at

one point to have received 2000 letters of support out of total membership that has been

estimated at this time to have been in the neighbourhood of 8000 .20 Consequently, in

March 1949, the dissidents formed a new-organization called Technodemocracy that

listed an initial membership of 600 .2'

Over the next two years this group paralleled almost exactly the pattern of

schisms and splinter groups that had characterized the Continental Committee. Two

of the offshoot groups also succumbed to the temptation to make alliances and m e r g e r s

with other causes, a s had several of the CCT factions previously. An additional

parallel with the e a r l i e r CCT was that the goals of these groups tended to be more

reform oriented than was Technocracy Inc. Eventually all that remained was a very

small Technodemocracy group centered around R. B. Langdon, the f o r m e r editor of

the Great Lakes ~ e c h n o c r a t . ~Little

~ is known about the eventual fate of this group.

It was still in existence in 1954, calling itself the Institute of Social ~ n ~ i n e e r i and
n~,~~

publishing ten leaflets, seven different pamphlets, and two periodicals. There w e r e

probably a t this point more pamphlets than members.

It s e e m s to have differed substantially f r o m Technocracy Inc. on four main

points.

a) It claimed to be democratic.
b) It had a transition plan f o r achieving the altered social system.
c) It favoured a national referendum on the subject.
d) It limited its objectives initially to the U . S. A .

The second of these points (the transition plan) underlines an important issue

that was largely obscured o r implicit in the original conflict. This was the recurrent

tension between "activity" and "education", between passive millennia1 sectarianism

and purposive political activity. The Total Conscription program had resolved the
e a r l i e r ambiguities on this matter by moving directly into political participation in

continental affairs, and in the f i r s t few years following the war the movement had

altered this program and maintained a flurry of public proselytization. These activi-

ties, however, had tended both to decline and to deteriorate into civic good works.

CHQ was offering little o r no leadership at this point - a matter of some importance

in such a centralized movement - and the -slogans "we a r e an education and research

organization1' and "Technocracy has no assumption of power theory", were starting to

become re-enshrined. The schism crystalized the two polar positions, with the dis-

sidents wanting to facilitate the arrival of the new day and the loyalists willing patiently

to await the millennium.

The West Coast sections of Technocracy Inc. seem to have suffered the small-

e s t membership loss in the schism, eastern Canada and the Great Lakes region being

the hardest hit. Today almost all Technocracy Inc. sections a r e on the west coast of

the continent.

The technological army had long been the model of organization f o r Technocracy

Inc., and the 1948 conflict produced a renewed emphasis on the authoritarian (as

opposed simply to "efficiency1') aspects of this model. In December of 1948 the Digest

printed the "William Knight Letter", which was widely circulated in 1948, and which

summarizes we11 the organizational position on leader-follower roles. The letter is

cast in the framework of a reply to a new, questioning member, by a close friend of

Scott's. The 'answers1 in the letter deal with most of the issues raised by the Chicago

group: namely, lack of support and resources from CHQ, s e c r e t identity of the

Continental Board of Governors, Howard Scott a s dictator, and the lack of a currently

relevant overall program. The following quotations indicate the tenor of the responses.

CHQ can help in providing lectures to a very limited extent and get things
started, but we cannot and will not go out of our way trying t o c r a m Technocracy
down the throats of people who want to be entertained.24

You seem to worry a lot about the leadership of Technocracy Inc., and if I
understand you rightly you would feel more comfortable if you knew that in
the present leadership of Technocracy Inc. a r e included well known personali-
ties whose names appear in the newspapers quite often. 25
 The Technocracy literature had continually intimated that the Continental Board

of Governors was made up of precisely such personalities, whose public stature made

it necessary that their participation remain secret. Knight goes on to tell his ques-
tioner that such a concern is a "herd instinct" and that "big names" don't make the

ideas right. If "you need to bolster yourself with beliefs that some big men believe in

the same things you do, I would advise you to drop out of T e c h n o ~ r a c y . " ~The
~ question

having thus been defined a s a problem of the questioner's psyche, no legitimation for

secrecy is given, and the letter goes on to discuss Howard Scott a s dictator.

In my estimation he i s the only logical leader of Technocracy Inc., and I bow

to his leadership.
To think of Howard Scott a s dictator of tomorrow is ridiculous. ...
He would be the last man in the world to cherish the task of being a dictator.. ..
As f a r a s I am concerned, to bask in the reflected glory of a man of that size
i s a great deal more than I deserve f o r the very little that I have done for
Technocracy. I t r y to serve the Chief and I do not question what he does, nor
do I ask him f o r any certificates proving to me that he can c a r r y on the work
that he is doing.27

Thus we have the continuing paradox of the ideological combination of oil and water:

the scientific method and the divine right of kings. The final paragraphs a r e quoted

below in full as they a r e so explicit about the quality of faith now required of the

membership.

My advice to you is to keep on doing your work and do not worry about
the leadership of the action program of Technocracy. As your ability to serve
increases, you will have ever increasing opportunities to know who the leaders
of Technocracy a r e and how it is proposed to bring about the change from the
America of today to the America of tomorrow.
F o r the time being what we need is a well-disciplined organization of
men and women who can prepare themselves f o r the task of officering the
Technological Army which will stave off disaster and chaos when the Price
System is ready to fold up. And the time is not very f a r off.
You have joined this Army, and whether you like it o r not, you will be
part of it either a s a soldier o r a s an officer. When you join an Army you do
not expect to be introduced to the General Staff, o r do you? And you do not
expect to be shown the mobilization plans of the next war, o r do you? and s o
what? 28

Scott was not content however, with m e r e exhortation to the membership.

Shortly after the publication of the Knight Letter, a "Loyalty Statement" was sent to a

number of sections to be signed by the membership. Participants were to denounce the

Chicago meetings a s a "subversive conspiracyf1and swear "unqualified support f o r

Technocracy Inc., its Continental Headquarters, its Board of Governors [whoever they

were], and its Director in Chief, Howard ~ c o t."

t 2 9 A rigid authoritarianism had been

clearly characteristic of the movement prior to this date. It was simply more clearly

and manifestly defined in the course of the conflict. Innovation and criticism were

now largely taboo. As in the early conflict ai Columbia and later with the CCT, the

solution to difference and conflict was expulsion and separation, accommodation and

compromise being rejected in favour of polarization. This inability and/or unwilling-

ness to effect mergers and compromises has resulted increasingly in Technocracy

Inc. having a kind of sectarian integrity and organizational strength. With each con-

flict, the organization became smaller, more cohesive, and ideologically more polar-

ized relative to opposing organizations and factions. Correspondingly, public

relevance declined, a s did active participation in public affairs. This last major

schism in 1948 is important in that it contributed to the subsequent rapid decline of

Technocracy Inc. into obscurity and isolation. When the Knight Letter was written,

the movement had been publishing 11 different journals. By early 1950 it produced

only three. The five West Coast radio broadcasts were reduced to one ." CHQ has

issued no new pamphlets since 1950, and its headquarters moved. soon after the split,

to a farm in Pennsylvania. The Technodemocrats had recruited a substantial number

of Technocracy's members, and a number of West Coast Technocrats, while not

forming Technodemocracy sections, simply left the movement. While several new

themes developed in the Technocracy Inc. literature between 1950 and today, no new

programs o r tactics have been developed. We will now touch briefly on organizational

affairs through this period and then discuss in some detail the movement in Vancouver

today.
 NOTES
1
James C. Davies, "Toward A Theory of R e v o l u t i ~ n American
,~~ Sociological
Review, XXVII, (February, 1962), p. 5.
2
"Notes on Organization", Technocracy Digest, January, 1949, p. 49.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., p. 50.

This event was discussed in a number of issues of both the Technocracy D i ~ e s t

(e. g. August, 1948, pp. 10-ll ., July, 1948, p. 3 .), and The Technocrat (e. g. August,
1948, p. 15, and December, 1948, p. 2.)
6
Elsner, p. 256.
7
Elsner, p. 254, and Benson pp. 57 -58.
8
Interview with a former Technocrat a s quoted by Elsner, pp. 256-257.
9
Ibid.
lo
TIQuestionll,Great Lakes Technocrat, lV, No. 9, Sec. 1 , R.D. 8741,
March-April, 1948, p. 17.

l1 Ibid.

l2 Ibid.

l3 Elsner, p. 257.
l4
Interview with an ex-Technocrat, who was a member a t this time.

l5 Elsner, pp. 260-261.

l6
New York Times, December 3, 1948, p. 17.

l7 Ibid.
l8 Technocracy Inc. , " Preliminary Report Of Treachery, Conspiracy And
Sabotage1', September 28, 1948 (mimeographed), a s quoted by Elsner, pp. 259-260.
All references to this report a r e from Elsner.

Interview with an ex-Technocrat.

20 Elsner, p. 263.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.,p.269.
23 New Analyst, IV, No. 9, March, 1954, Chicago: Technodemocracy (mimeo-
graphed).
24 "The William Knight Letter, l 1 Technocracy Digest, December, 1948, pp. 6-11,
25 Ibid., p. 7 .

26 Ibid.,pp.8-9.

27 Ibid.,p.g.

30
Technocracy Inc., "My Support for Technocracy Inc., I t February 5 , 1949
(triplicate mimeographed form) a s quoted by Elsner, pp. 263 -264.

31 Elsner, p. 264.
 CHAPTER ELEVEN

1950 TO 1968 - CHANGING THEMES AND DECLINING ACTIVITY

Between 1950 and the time of this study (1967 -1969) there have been no signi-

ficant changes in Technocracy's basic program, although it i s clear that participation

of the movement in ongoing social affairs has declined to almost nil. Before detailing

the movement' s declining fortunes, however, the qualification must be made that

henceforth we will be dealing almost solely with the Vancouver section. We have

already argued that such a focus is defensible inasmuch as the movement's total

centralization of control and intolerance of autonomous innovation precludes significant

diversity in different sections. By and large, the limited data that a r e available on

sections other than Vancouver support this contention. There is some slight indica-

tion, however, that at various times during this period some of the California Tech-

nocrats have been somewhat more active in terms of proselytization and the related

"symbolization" program than have the Vancouver Technocrats.

Vancouver has published the Digest continually throughout this period, and

a generalized content analysis is instructive regarding the changing nature of the

movement.

Several new themes were developed in this time span. With the Korean War,

the Total Conscription program was half-heartedly revived for a brief period and then

quietly dropped. As the Cold War ideology was developed across the continent,

Technocracy developed and maintained a solid anti-Cold War theme, focussing directly

on a critique of Cold War propaganda. Linked to this set of ideas was a definition of

the U. S.A. a s imperialist (a state of affairs seen a s necessitated by a Price System).

The movement' s strongest attack, however, was reserved for the Roman Catholic

Church, which was seen as a "Fascist1' collaborator, and in some instances, an insti-

gator of American imperialism. This theme was most clearly and comprehensively

developed in an article released by CHQ (unsigned) in 1950. The Catholic Church's

activities in political affairs since the Second World War were reviewed, and its
 .
'policy1 a s regards the U S .A. was summaxized a s follows.

F o r centuries, the Roman Catholic Church has dominated South and Central
America. Its great ambition n'ow i s to capture Protestant North America and
turn it into a satellite of the Vatican.'

The link was then made to Cold War politics,

Since the war, the United States has become the arsenal and treasure house of
the Vatican in its aggressive war against the U. S. S. R . , and the political,
financial, and military leaders of this great nation in effect, a r e being cunningly
turned into puppets of the Vatican.2

Aside from this continuing concern with a "Fascist, Catholic c o n s p i r a ~ y ' ~Technocracy
,

was extremely sensitive to U. S. interventions and alliances with various totalitarian

and/or Fascist governments, primarily, of course, in South America. As Howard

Scott put it in a speech in 1956, "we've hooked up with every Fascist bum from hell to

breakfast" .3 The movement was of course strongly opposed to Joseph McCarthy.

Another theme that occupied increasing attention throughout this period was

automation. The Technocrats, of course, had anticipated the growth of automated

technology previously, and with the expansion of automated techniques throughout the

1950's they were able to claim a "prophecy fulfilled". Against the writers and com-

mentators who either lauded automation o r who detailed its dangers they argued that

within a Price System it did indeed cause problems, but in a Technate this need not,

in fact would not, be the case.

Automation was the major case where the Technocrats claimed foresight. In

addition, a growing proportion of the articles were concerned not so much with current

program and organization, but with self-congratulatory items on the correctness of

previous analysis. Several times entire articles were devoted to this kind of theme.'

Similarily, we find an increase in the number of reprints of old articles, always pre-

faced by the claim that the article in question was still relevant despite its age, and

that this continuing relevance of early analysis was a demonstration of the veracity and

superiority of Technocratic thought. Through the 1950's we find only a few of these

reprints, but so f a r in the 1960's there has been at least one per year.

At the same time, the number of articles dealing with current program, tactics,

and organizational forms and practices declined noticeably, while concurrently there
was an increase in discussions of what the new society (the Technate) would be like.

In other words, the discussion of ways and means of achieving the Technate declined,

while utopian speculation on the anticipated new society increased. The regular

feature 17Noteson Organization1' ceased to be included in the Digest circa 1950, and the

proportion of items on organizational affairs decreased a s time went by. During the

19501s the percentage of such articles was 1.4 per four issues, while to date in 1969

it has dropped to 0.4.

One further observation should be made on the direction in which the movement

has been developing, as reflected in the writings. In the early and middle 1950's the

number of Technocrats participating in writing f o r each issue was proportionately

larger than i s true for the late 1950's and early 1960's. In the earlier period an issue

would usually contain a brief editorial by the main editor, an article issued by CHQ

(invariably signed by Wilton Ivie, who seems to have replaced Scott a s main ideologue),

several short reprints from Price System journals, and a couple of articles by differ-

ent members. This distribution has gradually changed to the point that currently we

would be likely to find in any one issue: one main article by the editor, one article

from CHQ, one reprint of an earlier Technocracy article (either local o r CHQ), four

o r five reprints from Price System journals and newspapers, and a large number of

fillers. To find an article today by a member other than the editor is r a r e . In the

earlier period, eight o r nine different Technocrats might contribute articles in the

course of a year (four issues), while today writing i s restricted primarily to the Digest

editor and CHQ. It should perhaps be noted here that the centralized control of the

movement i s also reflected in publication, insofar as all articles must be cleared by

CHQ prior to publication.

This completes our brief summary of the process of decline of the movement.

In 1960 an article in The Technocrat asserted:

Twice within recent decades, the American people have been ready for revolu-
tionary change. .. ..
[1932 and prior to the U S entry into World War I1 a r e
identified]...And when opportunity knocks again. Technocracy Inc. will be at
the doors, ready and ~ a i t i n g ! ~
 What remains of Technocracy Inc. i s , then, patiently awaiting the millennium,

and it is to this group of people that we now turn our attention.

 NOTES
1
Technocracy Digest, November, 1950, p. 15.
2
Ibid.
3
Howard Scott, "The Chips Are Down," Tape recording of a speech given in
Detroit, March 17, 1956.
4
See, f o r instance, "We Told You Way Back Then,?' Technocracy Digest, May, 1957
pp. 17-23; and "Idea Ahead Of Time, l 1 Technocracy Digest, May, 1962, pp. 49-50.
5
The Technocrat, March, 1960, p. 8, a s quoted by Elsner, p. 268.
 CHAPTER TWELVE

TECHNOCRACY TODAY IN VANCOUVER

Technocracy today contrasts dramatically with the earlier movement, particu-

larly in the periods of greatest movement strength, 1938-1940 and 1945-1947. The
millennium has been postponed indefinitely and only a relative handful of the 'faithful1
1
remain to perpetuate the organization. The result is a small, socially isolated,
highly alienated organization that has become increasingly less central to participants'

lives. The effect of the 1948 schism was a polarization of Technocracy Inc. to a fully

passive millennia1 position in terms of "making the revolution". Prior to this conflict

there had been ambiguity about how active a role the movement should play in social

affairs. Following the events of 1948, considerably less ambiguity on these matters

i s discernable. In fact the surest means of identifying a novice Technocrat today is to

note those who respond to Technocratic critiques of some aspect of Price System

operations by asking, "What can we [as ~echnocrats]do about it?"

Today there is only one section of Technocracy Inc. in Vancouver (there a r e

no other remaining sections in British Columbia), and while the Technocrats claim a

total British Columbia membership of several hundred, probably not more than 50-70

members participate in Technocracy activities over the course of a year.

Active participation is limited largely to 15-20 members, the majority of whom

a r e also the local board of directors. Participation for other members i s character-

istically limited to three o r four events per year, and for these members their contact

with Technocracy and other Technocrats is limited to these extremely occasional

meetings. As one member said to me: "You'd be surprised at how many people a r e
members; you would have to attend 30 meetings to meet everyone ." New members

a r e r a r e and a r e certainly offset by at least a corresponding loss of older participants.

Proselyting is limited and clearly not a high priority. The movement defines itself

relative to both the larger public and specific other groups and movements, a s both

highly alienated and subject to a "conspiracy of silence" about its existence and meaning.
In a 1968 television interview, Donald Bruce, who is an ex-editor of the Digest and a

member both on the local Board of Directors and the Continental Board of Directors,

said: "We regard ourselves a s in enemy territory, i . e . , the Price System, and we

will never let the forces of the Price System know our strength in any localev. 2 (This

in response to a question on membership figures .) Few members actually know, in

fact, what the number of dues-paying members is, in Vancouver alone, let alone in

any other city. This brings us to the point that not only i s Technocracy largely iso-

lated from the larger society, but today there i s also an internal isolation among various

sections. Vancouver Technocrats, f o r instance, have relatively little awareness of the

present overall scope of the movement and activities in various centers. In most

cases knowledge about the rest of the movement i s limited to the centers that publish

the other two Technocracy magazines, but even this is limited, for a s we have already

seen very little is carried in the various journals about organizational activities.

Before going on to detail some of the above characterizations of the current

state of the movement, we will give a brief description of the Vancouver section's

facilities, organizational structure, and activities.

All Technocracy activities take place in the Vancouver section hall on the

Kingsway. This building, owned by the Technocrats, i s a former funeral parlor, and

has undergone considerable interior re-decoration since its change in function. The

main floor includes three offices and a meeting hall capable of seating perhaps 7 5

people. This main hall i s used primarily for the monthly public lecture meetings, of

which some description will be given below. The basement floor of the building in-

cludes a kitchen and a large meeting room filled with small tables. In one corner of

this room i s a small reading area, intermittently supplied with various periodicals.

Also in this corner is a bulletin board on which a r e tacked notices of future meetings

and speakers and clippings from newspapers and magazines, the subject matter of

which i s seen to parallel Technocracy1s in some manner. Beneath this bulletin board

i s a suggestion box with appropriate official forms (see Appendix 2). During the year

that this writer participated in Technocracy, he never saw anyone make use of this
box; the dust level and aging character of the printed suggestion forms a r e graphic

witness that it has perhaps been years since anyone has done so. Several large scrap-

books are kept in the basement hall, containing photographs and newspaper clippings

of previous Technocratic activities. Similarly, it is years since any entry has been

made in these books. '

The primary use of this room i s the monthly Current Events Class", which is

normally preceded by supper prepared by the ladies in the "functional" kitchen. This

room is also used for the Technocracy Study Course whenever there is one in opera-

tion. Both of these activities will be discussed in more detail below. The monthly

Board of Directors meetings a r e held either in the main o r the basement hall. These

various meetings make up the core of official Technocracy activities.

The formal organization of the movement i s specified in great detail in releases

and by-laws from CHQ. The section Board of Directors i s the basic governing body,

presided over by the Section Director and Chief of Staff. At various times in the past

this director might be the sole salaried officer in a section, but at this point, while he

may receive a small salary, it i s insufficient to allow him to avoid a Price System job.

The Director has, in all matters, a veto power that can be overruled only by a unani-

mous vote of the entire Board. There is no explicit mechanism for selecting a Director,

and he can be removed only through appeal to CHQ. The Board is made up of directors

of various standing committees such as membership, publication, and finance, and is

subject yearly to majority approval of the membership. Regular reports a r e required

by CHQ a s well a s copies of ALL correspondence. Technocracy speakers a r e desig-

nated a s "John Doe - - Authorized Technocracy Speakerf'; this authorization also

granted solely by CHQ.

Today this Board of Directors makes up the central core of actively participat-

ing Technocrats. There a r e only two authorized Technocracy speakers, both being on

the Board of Directors a s well. John Darvil, the section Chief of Staff, is the most

frequent speaker at public meetings, runs the monthly Current Events class, and is an

assistant editor of the ~ i ~ e s Aside

t . ~ from those noted above who participate in an
overlapping fashion onthe Board and various committees, there a r e perhaps only five

o r six Technocrats who are present for all activities on a regular basis. The majority

of the 'regulars1 also interact socially 'outside' of Technocracy. This i s not true of

the members who attend less frequently, who seem often to know each other super-

ficially, if at all.

We shall now discuss the regular monthly activities of Technocracy, commenc-

ing with the once-monthly Public Meeting.

These meetings a r e usually held on a Sunday evening, and a r e often preceded

by a membership supper. Public advertising i s limited to a few bulletin boards to

which some members have access (at places of work and so forth) and a small notice

on the door of the section hall. On the night of the meeting a sign saying "Public

Meeting" is placed outside the hall. This i s usually the sum total of publicity. Tech-

nocrats argue that they publicize to the limit of their financial means, but clearly this

i s not the case. In the earlier, more active phases of the movement, participants

demonstrated considerably more ingenuity in obtaining public attention. Our observa-

tion is that, while in all matters of recruitment and "spreading the word1' Technocrats

today still go through the motions, the substance of such efforts i s a pale imitation of

previous times.

Public meetings a r e always held in the main hall. The visitor first passes

through a small foyer where current issues of Technocracy Inc. journals, which a r e

f o r sale, a r e displayed. On entering the hall he finds two tables completely covered

with various Technocracy pamphlets, bulletins, and hand-outs. At the r e a r of the hall

is a bookcase filled with the various books and reports that the organization has used
a t different times. On the right-hand wall a r e silk-screen multi-colour charts that

illustrate points from the study course. In the front of the hall i s a speaker's podium,

and beside it a small table where the membership secretary i s prepared to sign up
new members following the meeting. On the wall behind the podium is a large repro-

duction of the Monad symbol.

The meetings follow a regular ritual. While people a r e being seated, the ushers
(two uniformed Technocrats) hand out "statement of interest1' forms to non-members.

These a r e f o r use in "contact" mailing, to inform of activities and send literature on

Technocracy. Average attendance at these meetings i s usually about 20-25, and of

these usually no more than three o r four a r e non-members. The entire meeting,

however, proceeds a s if the majority of the audience were strangers to the movement.

When the speaker is ready, another Technocrat (also in uniform4) comes to the podium,

gives the Technocracy salute, and welcomes the audience in the name of Technocracy

Inc., Section 1, R.D. 12349.' He briefly introduces the speaker by name and Tech-

nocracy rank only: f o r instance, Authorized Technocracy Speaker Mr. John Darvil,

Chief of Staff, Section 12349 Technocracy Inc. The speaker (also in uniform) then

appears, salutes the audience and begins his talk, which lasts about an hour. These

lectures follow a characteristically unflamboyant pattern. The manner of delivery is,

in fact, prescribed in some detail in the speakerst guide, and the overall projected

image is of the social technician - calm, dignified, detached, and above all lscientificl.

It i s the social professor in a (grey) lab coat presenting his findings. The content

varies, but the elements a r e characteristically the same. Current social problems

a r e discussed, and a r e shown to be the inescapable consequences of a Price System

and of the unidirectional trends of technological developments. Facts and figures a r e

presented copiously (as much as possible without notes in the manner of Howard Scott).

Current political solutions a r e shown to be totally inadequate, and a summary of the

idea of the Technate is presented. Some history of the movement is usually given,

often in order to demonstrate 'scientific prediction1 fulfilled. Usually, the presenta-

tion ends with a stress on the inevitability of Price System collapse and the, therefore,

sole remaining alternative of "Technocracy o r Chaosf1. The entire talk has been

directed solely to non-members. In terms of Technocratic thought no content has been

introduced with which a non-member, after reading two o r three pamphlets, would be

unfamiliar .
The speaker then sits down, and the member who originally introduced him

takes the podium and announces that there will be a question period llas soon a s the
speaker catches his breath1', and that in the meantime he wishes to announce that

following the meeting there will be coffee served downstairs to give non-members an

opportunity to meet with and question the Technocrats present. At this point there is

usually a reminder that literature on Technocracy is available at the r e a r of the hall.

Prior to recalling the speaker, a basic ground rule of the question period is presented.

The speaker will be most happy to answer questions, but Technocracy rules prohibit

him from engaging in any form of debate. Technocracy, the audience i s told, i s con-

cerned with matters of fact, not speculation and philosophy, and matters of fact a r e

not open to debate. While these announcements a r e being made, a collection is taken.

The speaker then returns and usually gives quite long, involved answers to each

question. The average number of questions asked is between four and five, and

usually at least half of these a r e asked by members. This is not a problem of ignor-
ance of the belief system, a s the questions a r e normally ones that could be answered
by the least-trained of members. It seems rather that this i s a form of participation,
whereby the member -feels that the speaker1s arguments will be strengthened by the
inclusion of the answer implied by the member's question. Following one of these
lectures, one member told me that he was disappointed by the rather limited answer
his question had received, and said that he hoped "to tip him [the speaker] off'' to
expand on a particular subject matter. At various times I heard similar comments.
When no further questions a r e forthcoming, the speaker announces that a member of
the membership committee will be available at the front desk to receive applications
f o r membership, and the lecture is completedO6
As we have noted, attendance at these meetings is usually around 20. An out-
of-town speaker (for example from Seattle o r Los Angeles) may double normal attend-
ance, though not the percentage of new members. At all meetings there a r e slightly
more men than women, and the average age of the audience must be between 55 and 60.

A question asked at one of these public meetings (of an out-of-town speaker) was the

occasion of another more significant observation. The questioner (a non-member who

was attending f o r the f i r s t time) said: "This is all very interesting if irrelevant to ...
(problem X) ; how i s it related to. .. etc .l' This brought surprised gasps from the rest

of the audience, and a large number turned to stare at the questioner. The "Authorized
Speakerf1was also clearly thrown off balance by a critical question. His response

was halting and disjointed, and he moved quickly to another subject. This encounter

highlighted the isolation of the movement from the political conflict that is the daily

fare of dynamic movements (including Technocracy at an earlier time). Questions at

"Public Meetings1' a r e either a form of participation by members, o r simple requests

for information, often in the form of "What does Technocracy say about ...?'I
Critical questions are simply no longer the norm, which accents the hollowness of the

ritual of addressing the meetings to non-members. We a r e also reminded of the para-

dox of a non-questioning 'science1 .

The nature of the monthly Current Events class i s instructive about the current

state of the movement.

THE CURRENT EVENTS CLASSES

The education that a Technocrat acquires through his participation in the Study

Course and Public Meetings and from the numerous pamphlets and journals, provides

him with a highly detailed and comprehensive critical model to interpret the Price

System. The monthly Current Events classes7 deal with contemporary applications

of the model. As well a s putting topical social affairs in the Technocratic context,

these classes continually emphasize the inexorable unfolding of societal (primarily

technological) trends in a manner congruent with the predictions of Technocracy. ' If

some Technocrats feel that they participate somewhat less than sufficiently in the

making of history, there is no question but that they do feel that they understand it.

This continued feeling that participation in Technocracy provides a contem-

porary understanding of Itwhere the world i s going" i s in large part attributable to the

monthly classes. Technocrats have an obvious confidence that the movement, and
these meetings in particular, give one "an inside track on what is going ont1. I

suspect that these meetings a r e of fundamental importance in confirming members1

definitions of the movement a s of continuing relevance and significance in their lives.

We have indicated earlier that the description of Technocrats as waiting in "tense

expectation of the millennium1I largely ceased to be applicable as of late 1939-1940,

with perhaps some revival of expectation in the period 1945-1947. With the decline of
Technocracy since the 1940fs, the inevitable breakdown of the Price System and the

ensuing millennium becomes increasingly problematic for participants. The contem-

porary analysis of these classes seems, however, to have the effect of confirming
memberst confidence in the prophecy of an inevitable Technate. Much of the "instruc-
tion" is cast in the form of a demonstration of increasing crisis of Price System
operations. The effects of this format a r e reflected in the following comment made
in the form of a summation by a participant following one of the classes. He said:
"Things a r e getting so bad they can't be hidden." Such a statement inevitably is
greeted by confirming nods of agreement. A more elaborate personal summation was

given to me one night after such a class. It seems to sum up quite well the basic
effects of these meetings. V v e been through a number of meetings like these, both
disturbing and stimulating, and you are left wondering how long it [the Price system]
can keep operating. "
We a r e not arguing here that it is solely o r even primarily these classes that .

serve to retain the current membership. Most of the participants have been members
for 20 years o r more, and this represents a considerable investment in the relevance
and significance of the movement. We have discussed some of the consequences of

these classes and will now describe in more detail the form and substance of this

activity.
sf+-%
The classes a r e usually held on a - d h w l q evening and a r e preceded by a dinner.
The Chief of Staff for this section, John Darvil, i s the instructor, and normal attend-

ance is between 15 and 20. Non-members may attend these meetings, but few in fact
do, and the bulk of those present will be vregularsf,the remaining four o r five being
part of that larger pool of Technocrats whose participation is limited to two o r three
events per year. The class sits around a long table with the instructor at one end.
Pencils and paper a r e distributed for people to make notes. F o r the next two hours

the instructor reads and comments on a number of extracts from various newspapers
and journals. Subject matter is heavily weighted in terms of social problems,
consequent interpretation dealing with the Price System's inability to deal with the

issue in question. In addition, there a r e always several items dealing with techno-
logical developments, and quite often one o r two articles dealing with "futuristic

projections". The characteristic treatment of these latter is: either they a r e not s o
f a r reaching a s Technocracy's projections, o r they a r e "unattainable within the frame-

work of a Price System" and hence "science fiction utopian fantasyM. The role of the

leader is very much that of 'information giving' . On many items there i s no comment

from participants at all, and on all others the number of discussants is extremely

limited.

While seating arrangements a r e not completely ritualized, those who normally

comment on articles sit close to the instructor, while more passive members sit a t

the farther end of the table, where they mostly sit and listen with occasional whispered

comments to their neighbours. In one meeting, f o r instance, I noted that 60 out of 7 4

comments came from participants a t the end of the table nearest the speaker. Some

actual figures on participation from another of these classes a r e perhaps instructive.

On 16 out of the 23 items discussed by the instructor, there was some comment by

participants. In four of these instances the comment was simply added information on

the subject, leaving 12 items on which there was a t least some discussion. Of the 17

people present (excluding the instructor and myself), seven participated not at all in

these discussions, four spoke once, one twice, one three times, one five, one seven,

one ten, and one seventeen. Clearly the bulk of verbalization centers around about

four o r five people. The term discussion used above may be somewhat misleading a s

there is, in fact, never any debate of any sort. Comments a r e always more anecdotal

than analytic, with participants normally seeming to instruct each other rather than

contradicting and/or debating.

While only a few of the articles used by the instructor deal with new technology,

many of the participants' anecdotes and much of the information giving deal with such

matters. Most Technocrats collect such data avidly, and in this sense most a r e ex-

perts in technological developments. Most Technocrats a r e also extremely sensitive

to the Price System's restrictions on the full utilization of the potential of technology,

and this subject is therefore a common theme in these meetings. In this context we
should note that a basic (though unacknowledged) root of Technocratic analysis is a

generalized form of Veblenls distinction between "Business" and Yndustryl', with the
Price System and Technology seen as fully analogous to Business and Industry. That
is to say, the form of economic relations described a s the Price System is considered

to have essentially the same relation to Technology as that which Veblen argued ex-
isted between Business and Industry. Whereas Veblen argued that the ItlogicIt of
Business enterprise f'sabotagedlt the full utilization of Industry, the Technocrats argue
that the same relationship holds between Technology and a Price System.
The following list of topics noted from one Current Events class may be helpful
in describing the substance of these meetings. Sources of the articles a r e included
where possible. (Original publication is not always stated by the instructor.)
Mental Health and Children Vancouver Sun
Military Industrial Complex Nation
.
Population of U S .A. Reaches 200 Million Newsweek and Saturday Review
.
Conservation of Wildlife in U .S A. source unknown
Problems of Negroes in U. S. A. Newsweek
Poverty and Welfare Payments Business Week
Unequal Justice for Rich and Poor Vancouver Sun
Defense spending in U. S. A. Business Week
Guerrilla Warfare in South America source unknown
..
U S Investment in Europe source unknown
New Technology in Transistors Business Week
Notes on Report from Iron Mountain New York Times
Use of Terms Technocracy and Technocrats
in Article on Russia Nation
Book on Winston Churchill New York Times

The sources generally used for articles a r e (in order), The New York Times, The
Nation, Business Week, The Vancouver Sun and Province, Newsweek, and The Pro-
gressive. Business Week is used primarily for the statistical and technological reports
found therein, and consistently right-wing journals a r e seldom if ever consulted.
Although Technocracy shares right-wing concerns with its anti-intellectual, anti-
Catholic, anti-alien, 100% Americanism9 position, and i s clearly authoritarian in
structure, it has at the same time consistently repudiated right-wing groups. We will
discuss this paradox more fully in the following section: "Being a Technocrat Today".
 To continue the discussion on the manner of participation in these classes, one

further observation is in order. While several members have comments to make, o r

information to give, on a heterogeneous range of subject matter, the majority partici-

pate f a r more selectively. That i s to say, after a time an observer can identify parti-
cular people with their specific topics of interest and observe as well that their
attention to other topics is often quite limited. Hence Mrs. participates only
when a i r pollution is the subject of discussion, while M r . seems to be interested
almost solely in conservation. This kind of selectivity of interest highlights the diffi-
culty of extrapolating sources of movement support from the tenets of ideology that
seem to the observer to be logically central to the belief system, as sometimes happens
10
in studies of movements.

The class ends with a collection being taken, and an attendance sheet is passed
around for participants to sign. Coffee is then served and the class breaks up into
groups of two o r three, in which the conversation often revolves around subjects raised

during the formal class. It is more common for some actual discussion to evolve in

these small informal groupings than in the more rigidly controlled l'classlt. Most of
the interaction, however, still remains at the level of informational monologue. The
manner of discontinuing conflict, when it does arise, is interesting, and reflects the
Technocratic use of science as a legitimation of belief rather than a s a method. When
debate and discussion reach the point where a non-Technocrat would say, '?Well, every
man is entitled to his own opinion1'," o r some variant on this theme, a Technocrat
usually substitutes for the above phrase: llWell. it seems to me that we a r e getting
into speculation (or philosophy) here", o r "For Technocrats, we're not talking very
factually here." As a reflection of scientific method this would be a signal to refocus
the question more precisely. For the Technocrat it is a way of ending debate and
changing the subject. I observed this kind of situation a number of times, and in

every instance the participants accepted the ttspeculationllphrase as a resolution and

retired from the debate, dropping the question entirely, Never was it the occasion for

refocussing the original question in a more 'scientific' manner.

 There i s another recurrent phrase in the Technocratic language that occurs

frequently in these classes, and that is similarly paradoxical with reference to

Technocracy's claim to follow scientific canons. Very often, when Technocrats a r e

discussing social problems produced by a Price System, the subject is concluded

when one of the participants says: l1 Well anyhow this wouldn't be a problem in a

Technatell. This phrase occurs most commonly at the point where the discussants

a r e experiencing some difficulty in achieving agreement on an analysis that demon-

strates precisely how X problem is, in fact, generated by the Price System. In such

instances the phrase i s a resolution, and in terms of scientific canons a premature

closure of questioning. Common variants on this theme are: "Merely an extension of

normal Price System procedures", and "A solution doesn't exist within the framework

of the Price System".

Furthermore, in the highly detailed plan f o r the Technate, solutions a r e pre-

sented for many of the things that Technocrats perceive a s social problems. The

main formulations of the Technocracy model however, have not been revised for 20

years. Hence, increasingly, the Technate model has no specific provisions to r e -

solve problems that Technocrats say "will not be a problem in a Technatel'. The

value of the Technate therefore becomes increasingly a matter of general faith, which

enhances the paradox between this and the movement1s 'scientific1 self legitimations.

This is perhaps the most useful point at which to expand on a somewhat more

general problem relevant to interpretations of any social movement. The study of any

movement inevitably reveals paradoxes, inconsistencies, gulfs between rhetoric and

practice, and various ideological contradictions. The commonest kinds of interpre-

tations of these sorts of observations tend in the extreme instances to center on con-

ceptions of the participant a s determined by an inordinate, almost fanatical ''need to

believe1', that excludes the possibility of recognizing and/or reconciling contradic-

tions. Eric Hoffer's conception of the ''True Believer1' is one of the more extreme
versions of this form of interpretation, while various formulations of the idea of the

llauthoritarian personality" contributed more sophisticated statements on a similar

ii theme.
 137

Such interpretation is usually (and often justifiably) phrased a s a disparage-

ment of the movement a s dogmatic and rigid. Participants a r e seen a s variously

divorced from reality, and as incapable, by reason of their dogmatic faith, of reasoned

thought. The evaluation then follows that the participants in X movement a r e basically

irrational, and the beliefs a r e seen as ritualistic dogma. Such an interpretation is

only fully tenable, we would argue, given, in the first place, a non-comparative

methodology, and in the second place, a serious underestimation of the extent to which

"reasonf1and "rationality1' are matters of situational and problematic social definition.

This is not to say that a specific movement, o r movements in general, a r e in any

sense intrinsically rational, but simply that "reasonf1and "rationality" a r e matters

relative to time and place (situational) and must therefore be defined by comparison

with specific other cases o r situations. Hence the importance of comparative meth-

odology. To compare the Technocracy movement, for instance, with the larger

society of which it i s a part, we would suggest that the contradiction between legitim-

izing myths and actual social relations is, in fact, usually just a s profound in the

larger society as in the movement; and hence the unquestioning o r anti-questioning

acceptance of inconsistency is in no way specific and unique to the movement partici-

pants. Such conceptions tend, therefore, implicitly to exaggerate the degree to which

non-movement thought is systematic and free of internal contradictions.

Furthermore, it is at least as plausible a hypothesis, that where movement

participants a r e by some objective criteria more dogmatic, rigid, and authoritarian

than a sample of the non-member population, their stance is not necessarily a demon-

stration of an original propensity to movement participation, but may be a product of

the movement's conflict with the 'outsidef society in which conflict over ideological
inconsistency is often a focus of debate and defense. It is at least possible that move-

ments attract particular kinds of people less often than does participation in the move-

ment create them.

To return to the specific case of Technocracy Inc., the previous discussion

has direct relevance to the final comment I wish to make on the Current Events classes.
The observation i s that most Technocrats are, by comparison with the bulk of the

population of the wider society, better informed about current events and social trends

and have a f a r more questioning and critical attitude. This i s primarily a consequence
of the acceptance and application of the Technocratic model of societal affairs, which

the classes serve to augment and concretize. For Technocrats, reports of current
events a r e not, in Alfred Schoetzls phrase, part of the "world-taken-for-granted",'2

but a r e data to be questioned and examined. While it i s unquestionably true that this
process often serves more to fortify and legitimize their belief system than to raise

questions about previous ideas, it is important to recognize that the model being so

fortified is a complex and critical one. Furthermore, the existence of a movement

requires that analysis and belief must, on occasion, be defended. One must be able
to explain how current events a r e "more than they seemf1, and very often this necessi-

tates placing such events in a comparative historical context.

I do not wish to belabour these points; nevertheless, one further note is relevant.

One manner in which a movement can maintain a critical stance within a totally closed,

non-questioning system of thought is to account f o r all events by way of a "conspiracy

theoryf1. Critical, in this context, means primarily opposition and not analysis. The

clearest contemporary example of such a case i s the assignment of all that is defined

a s evil by extreme right-wing groups to an "international Communist conspiracy". The

Technocrats do not have a general conspiracy theory. They do have a "conspiracy of

silencef' explanation of the lack of attention their movement is afforded by the public

media, but this i s hardly the same thing.

At the start of this discussion we noted that the analysis of any movement

inevitably reveals paradoxes and inconsistencies, but by way of comparison we must

add that this is true of any system of thought. The peaceful co-existence of disparate

ideas is not the sole property of movements, although often the non-comparative

analysis of movements would leave us with this impression.

Technocracy study classes a r e in large part a ritual, a reaffirmation of the

correctness of the movement, but they provide, a s well, a f a r richer, more complex
and critical understanding of current events than i s available, for instance, in the

public media.
 NOTES
This custodial character of the movement today i s explicit in the concluding
sentence of a recent Technocracy comment in Technocracy Digest, February, 1960,
p. 50, i.e., "Technocrats a r e the custodians of the most significant physical concepts
in the history of man".

Interview of Donald Bruce by Mark Raines, March 5, 1968. (Tape recording

of this interview in this writer's possession.)

The ranking system f o r Digest editors is a t least a s complicated a s that of

university professors. There are: an Editor, an Associate Editor, an Assistant
Editor, and an Advisory Editor. As well a s other means of centralized control, all
copy must be approved by CHQ prior to publication.

In earlier days Technocrats commonly wore their uniforms on a wide variety of

occasions (both Technocratic and public) and many wore it on an everyday basis, to
work, social gatherings and so forth. Today the uniform is worn almost solely for
official meetings at SHQ.
5
. .
The designation R D l2349, indicates the geographic location of the Vancouver
section of Technocracy Inc. The numbers a r e a combination of latitudinal and longi-
tudinal figures. The Technocrats proposed that in the Technate all place names of
cities and towns would be dispensed with and in their place be substituted this combina-
tion of latitudinal and longitudinal designations. The suggested advantage was that,
given an understanding of the principle, one would no longer be required to remember
a large number of place names. This is an example of what I earlier called 'detailed
utopian' planning.
6
Elsner has described a typical Public Meeting during an earlier period and, by
comparison, today's lectures a r e slightly less rigid in terms of procedures. See
Elsner, pp. 193-196.
7
Note the terminology, that is, "classes", not seminars o r discussion groups,
but "classes" - the language of formal schooling. Correspondingly, Public Meetings
a r e called l'lectures".

Many of the predictions defined a s confirming Technocratic analysis a r e of s o

general a nature and the substantiating data so specific and limited that a non-Technocrat
may be less than convinced. In this context, the form (though not the substance) i s
parallel to the daily horoscope in the newspapers and the kind of data accepted a s veri:
fication by the two groups is similar.
9
See, for instance, the pamphlet, Technocracy Inc., Our Country Right Or
Wrong (New York, 1946).
lo
In general terms the reasoning is that in identifying the groups that the move-
ment opposes (or supports), we may by inference discover groups of persons to whom
such an ideology would appeal. This approach has been extensively utilized in American
Studies of the Radical Right. This is to say that potential sources of support a r e
'discovered' through extrapolation from the logical thrust of the movement's ideology.
The usual kind of statement i s that X ideology would appear "to be designed to
appeal tot1A, B, and C groups. There a r e several rather obvious problems in focus-
sing on ideology in order to explain support and/or participation in movements.
In the first place there is no reason to assume that the elements of ideology
that a r e logically of central importance a r e therefore of greatest significance to the
membership a s a whole. Hans Toch states this point clearly when he says:
 There is nothing about the ideology itself that testifies to the centrality of this
belief. The ultimate test of how central a belief i s , i s not its position in the
logical structure o r its objective importance, but the way it i s perceived by the
believer.

We would add that there is no good reason for expecting the elements of the ideology
either to remain constant (no alterations, additions, o r deletions) o r to retain the
same degree of relative importance for the membership. Also important, in this con-
text, i s amatter of time sequence with regard to attitudes. In other words, it may well
be that the attributes considered by the observer a s conducive to recruitment are, in
fact, a product of the individualls participation in the movement.
The study by Jones, noted in Chapter Seven, would seem to support this latter
contention with regard to the Technocrats. His study showed clearly that, for his
sample, there was very little difference between new Technocrats and non-Technocrats
(in terms of attitudes toward corporate property), but that the attitudes of Technocrats
who had been in the movement long enough to have completed its Study Course contrasted
radically with both of the other groups. The quotation from Hans Toch is from; Hans
Toch, The Social Psychology off3ocial Movements (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill
Company, Inc., l965), p. 24.
l1
For the Technocrats, with their positivistic stance that rejects all %on-fa~tual~~
o r non-countable data from consideration, opinions a r e not acceptable. The Techno-
crats continually assert: "We a r e not interested in belief, speculation, philosophy o r
."
opinion, but in facts
l2
The phrase: llworld-taken-for-granted' is that of Alfred Schuetz. It is used by
Peter Berger in: Peter Berger, Invitation To Sociology (New York: Doubleday and
Company, Inc., 1963), p. 24.
 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS INVOLVED IN THE PROBLEM OF

"BEING A TECHNOCRAT TODAY"

This, and the following chapter will deal with some of the dynamics of "Being

a Technocrat Today". In order to discuss the nature and meaning of current partici-

pation in this movement, it is necessary f i r s t to develop some comparative theoreti-

cal perspective on the kinds of conflicts and tensions generated by differing movement

processes and situations in general. Our analysis will focus on matters specifically

relevant to Technocracy, particularly those questions raised in Chapter One, with

generalization about other movements remaining tentative and suggestive.

A useful starting point for examining the conflicts and tensions of movement

processes is the conception of characteristically different marginal situations in

which members of various kinds of movements may find themselves. Although we

would not consider the idea of a marginal personality a particularly viable manner of

explaining recruitment to movements, this does not eliminate the possibility of

variously marginal situations as determinants of movement processes. The usual

understanding of marginal situations is of areas in which participants a r e "in but not

oPv two o r more groups that are in some form of structural opposition t o each other.

Some manner of conflict between the groups is obviously a prerequisite of a marginal

situation, a s multiple membership in various groups is in itself not necessarily a

source of tension. Participation in a movement involves, by definition, some degree

of conflict (see page 166), and therefore quite commonly produces situations of ambigu-

ous and divided loyalties to, and acceptance by, various groups.

The core of this idea was originally suggested by Everett C. Hughes, in 1949,

in a more general article on marginality and status. He lists a number of character-

istic means by which a person can cope with marginal status:

All such persons could give up the struggle by retiring completely into the status
with which they a r e most stubbornly identified by society ....One of the statuses
could disappear a s a status .... Persons of marginal position might individually
 resign from the status which interferes with their other status aims.. ..
One
o r both of the statuses might, without disappearing, be s o broadened and rede-
fined a s to reduce both the inner dilemma and the outward contradiction.'

He adds the further possibility that a marginal group may come to be defined a s an

additional and legitimate new category of people. In relation to movements, he says:

"One can see in social movements - - cultural, national, racial, feminist, class --
all of these tendencies .... The internal politics of a social movement turns about the

choice of these solution^.^^^ While noting this a s an important initial formulation, we

would hesitate to isolate too quickly, internal and external relations. That is, margin-

ality implies interaction, and hence we a r e not concerned solely with the participant

and the movement, but with external groups that participate in the marginal situation

a s well. Movements a r e self-evidently in various degrees of conflict with specific

groups external to themselves and/or to the larger society a s a whole. Inevitably,

however, except in the case of a successful revolution, participants live in two worlds;

that is, the movement, and their particular position in the outside world. Herein lies

the potential marginality. Depending on the kind of movement, participants a r e

variously in, but not totally of, two different sets of social relationships. As one

Technocrat told me: "I have Price System friends, and Technocrat friends, and I

keep them separate". This marginality is characteristically different for reform and

revolutionary movements. Eric Hobsbawmfs distinction between these two kinds of

3
movements is useful here. He says:

Reformists accept the general framework of an institution o r social arrangement,

but consider it capable of improvement, o r where abuses have crept in, reform;
revolutionaries insist that it must be fundamentally transformed o r replaced.'

To return to the main argument, the distinction between reform and revolution

i s neither an absolute nor an unchanging one, and it seems evident then, that members

of characteristically different movements (for example Reform o r Revolutionary) will

have divergent definitions of their own unique identity relative to outsiders. The more

severe the contrast (and conflict) between the movement and the 'outsidev society, the

more marginal is the situation for members, who must participate in both social con-

texts. The members of revolutionary movements a r e liable to experience more severe

contradictions between their roles within the movement and those that they must play

on the 'outside1, than is the participant in a reform movement. To the extent, then,
that reform and revolutionary movements create contrasting marginal situations for
members, we might expect to find characteristically different means by which parti-
cipants (in the different kinds of movements) seek to cope with marginal status.
We might list a number of possible alternative means of coping with marginal
situations similar to, though perhaps more extensive than, that of Hughes noted above,
and develop hypotheses on their relative frequency pertaining to reform o r revolution-

ary movements. Such a procedure would seem to be most useful with regard to those
kinds of movements we discussed in Chapter One a s simple, homogeneous, and of

comparatively short life span. This is because, in such movements, it is clear that
they a r e EITHER reform movements OR revolutionary ones, by comparison with the
more complex, ideologically and tactically heterogeneous movements such a s Techno-
cracy, where different segments of the movement, at different points in time, develop
in contrasting directions. In the latter types of movements the distinction between
reform and revolution is neither an absolute nor an unchanging one, and hence the
differing kinds of marginal situations produced by members1 changing self-definitions,

and changing relationships with the outside world, a r e often quite complex. Clearly
the situation for participants in such movements would be simpler if the movement
could maintain a relatively fixed o r static position with regard to its relations with the

outside1 . There seem, however, to be a number of forces affecting movement affairs

that work against this.
Every social movement undergoes the pull of both reformism and revolutionism,
and with varying strength at different times. Except at the r a r e moments just
preceding o r during profound crisis and revolutions, the most extreme revolu-
tionaries must also have a policy about the existing world in which they a r e
obliged to live. If they want to make it more tolerable while preparing for
revolutions, o r even if they want to prepare effectively, they must also be
reformists. ...
The editors of the Monthly Review recently focussed on this problem a s "the

most difficult problem of revolutionary movementsv .6 In one sense this problem is

the source of the basic contradictions inherent in, and determinant of, internal move-
ment processes in both revolutionary and reform movements. The former necessarily
confront the contradictions between long-range revolutionary goals and tactics and

those demanded by short-term ameliorative reforms. Some of the pressures leading

participants in revolutionary movements toward consideration of a reformist perspec-

tive a r e noted by Hobsbawrn above. Reforms may be considered impossible within the

society o r its institutions without larger, more fundamental changes; nevertheless, if

they a r e considered at all possible, the effect of introducing them may be seen a s

potentially reducing participants1 consciousness of the wider changes required, and

hence the reforms may be opposed. Whatever the reasons accounting for this tension,

it seems clear that when revolutionary change i s seen a s less than imminent, the

constant tendency is for participants to consider the possibility of at least some amel-

ioration (reform) of the social structure. The tension in the more reform-oriented

movement is generated by the interdependence of various institutional sectors and

these sectors1 resistance to changes not forced by a power-based organization. Both

factors lead to more systematic revolutionary perspectives. This kind of conflict is

frequently the basis of schisms in movements, but in any event, the manner in which

movements deal with it produces different kinds of marginal situations for partici-

pants.

Although it should be apparent that I consider the concepts above to be poten-

tially relevant to analysis of a wide range of movements, the prime purpose in elabo-

rating them i s to test their utility in dealing with the types of questions about Techno-

cracy detailed in Chapter One.

We noted in Chapter One the difficulties involved in the Technocracy movement

a s a whole, in terms of the more common typological distinctions, inasmuch a s differ-

ent segments of the movement at different points of time developed in contrasting

directions. In succeeding chapters the details of some of these differences were elabo-

rated. In line with the formulations developed above, we would now argue that a basic

tension in the movement has been between (in Hobsbawnls words) llreformism and

revolutionism, and with varying strength at different timesu. The tension between
these two alternatives resulted in two major conflicts and schisms within the move-

ment. The first resulted in the development of two main branches of the movement in

the early stages - the Continental Committee and Technocracy Inc., and the second in

the conflict internal to Technocracy Inc., which produced the Technodemocrats in

1948.

As we noted previously, it is not sufficient in our discussion of Technocracy to

focus solely on the reform-revolution dialectic since the issue of how actively the move-

ment was to pursue its goals has also been an important and continuing debate. Con-
sequently we developed, in Chapter Six a four-fold typology to distinguish between

different factors in Technocracy at different points in time. This typology focussed,

on the one hand, on the kinds of social changes sought (Reformist o r Revolutionary)

and on the other, on the movement's conception of its role in effecting changes

(Activist o r Passive). Now a typology is in itself solely descriptive, but our obser-

vations of the movement allow us to develop some tentative conclusions about the re-

lationships between the various cells of the typology.

The revolutionary wing of the movement, Technocracy Inc., while it has r e -

mained consistently revolutionary in its goals, has fluctuated between active and passive

roles in its participation in social affairs. For most of its existence it has had to deal

with the problems (more active, reformist splinter groups being one such problem) of

a revolutionary movement existing in what i s (and is so perceived by movement parti-

cipants) a non-revolutionary social setting.

Technocratic groups other than Technocracy Inc. have consistently developed

along more reformist and more active lines. This correlation between reformist

goals and more active participation in social affairs is not entirely coincidental. The

revolutionary seeks broad and systematic changes, and in a social context where such

changes seem (at this time) unlikely, tends to see minor non-systematic reforms as

counterproductive to increasing revolutionary consciousness, that is, an awareness of

the need for such systematic and broad changes a s the revolutionary is proposing. The

reformer, on the other hand, with his non-systematic (piecemeal) approach i s more
open to a wide range of what are, from his perspective, isolated o r separate problems.

In other words, the revolutionary focusses on a fundamental change, which is seen a s

the only basis of solving a wide range of social problems, whereas the reformer is

essentially trying to deal with such social problems a s matters solvable in and of

themselves. The revolutionary tends to consider attempts a t reform futile o r only

mildly ameliorative, inasmuch a s he considers the problems in question to be insoluble

without more basic, structural, social change. In the language of Technocracy Inc.

such problems, "are not solvable within the framework of a Price System1'. Conse-

quently the range of activities for a revolutionary in a social context that he perceives

to be non-revolutionary is severely restricted. F o r the former, however, there is an

endless variety of reforms that can actively be sought.

Brian Wilson has written that millennia1 groups "expect something which is

beyond man's capacity to realize. Men can only put themselves in the right moral,

mental and ritual condition to receive the new order.'' While his observation is most

applicable to movements with extra-natural belief systems, there a r e clear parallels

with this most materialistic of movements. In the f i r s t place, it i s possible to develop

a more secular interpretation than that implied by Wilson's statement. We might

observe, then, that millennia1 and other revolutionary movements desire changes that

a r e beyond their capacity to realize in their particular social context. A possible

consequence of this dilemma may be the development of an ideology that rationalizes

the movement's failure by defining its goals a s in that realm of matters beyond manfs

capacity. The recognition that the movement' s goals a r e not immediately attainable

by participants' efforts may, then, be both an accurate analysis and a form of ration-

alization that legitimizes participants' relative inactivity in seeking to initiate social

change. In relation to Technocracy Inc., their analysis of the Price System stressed

that its demise was inevitable in the face of its own "internal contradictions'' (between
the "logic1' of technology and the ''logic" of business enterprise). Throughout the

history of the movement the substance of this argument remained the same, but the

Technocrats' conception of the degree to which the inevitable collapse of the system
was independent of their actions, varied.

In periods when the millennium was regarded a s imminent there was a tendency

f o r Technocrats to attempt in various ways to facilitate its arrival (the early phases of

the Total Conscription program being the best example of this tendency) even though

the "logic" of changing technology was still regarded a s the primary determinant of

social change. In other periods when the Price System appeared not to be on the verge

of collapse and the millennium, therefore, somewhat distant, increased emphasis was

placed on the importance of factors beyond the control o r influence of Technocrats

(that is, "internal contradictions in the Price Systemn) and "educational activities"

tended to focus increasingly on self-education of Technocrats rather than 'educating'

the non-Technocrat population.

We started this chapter with a discussion of the concept of marginality and

argued that revolutionary and reform movements produce contrasting marginal situa-

tions for movement participants. It was then necessary to elaborate on some of the

broad contrasts and changes that have characterized the history of the Technocracy

movement. Against this background it is now possible to examine in more detail

several aspects of the nature and meaning of membership in this movement from the

point of view of participants. Because data a r e limited on earlier periods in the

movement's history, we will have to focus primarily on the contemporary situation.

NATURE OF COMMITMENTS DEMANDED OF PARTICIPANTS

Different movements make contrasting claims on the lives of participants.

Some, like the religious utopian community movement, necessitate a total life commit-

ment, while others, such a s limited reform movements, make more limited claims

on memberst resources. The Townsend Movement for instance - a Depression move-

ment concerned with financial assistance of the elderly - clearly made more limited
demands on the time, resources, and behaviour of its membership than the utopian
communities noted above. James W. Vander Zanden in his article "The Klan Revival1',

makes a similar observation but does not expand on it in the way we have here. He

notes that: "Since the organization lays claim to his whole person (not merely to a
segment, as do most American voluntary associations), his social being tends to be-

come submerged within a greater whole .''e While there may well be additional factors

explaining these contrasts, it seems evident that the wide range o r scope and the high

intensity of such life commitments i s congruent with revolutionary movements, while

conversely, reform movements would have lower requirements. This i s especially

clear in reform movements like the YMCA, which become voluntary associations with

professional secretaries taking responsibility for functions previously the province of

lay participants. 9

A related, but slightly different, element revolves around the question of the

centrality of the movement in members' lives. To the extent that a movement can

successfully claim large proportions of participants' time and other resources, the

members1 and the movement' s existences a r e largely congruent. In most cases the

revolutionary small-scale movement (like Technocracy) has such limited resources

and such restricted effects on the wider society that members must live in an increas-

ingly schizophrenic situation. The movement should be of central importance, but

lives must be lived, careers advanced, and responsibilities met in the wider society.

A successful movement in this situation must find ways of justifying the contradictions,

that is, "giving to Caesar what i s Caesar's'l. A common Technocracy phrase here is:

"Well, even Technocrats have to eatf1. This is the most marginal of all possible situa-

tions for movement participants. From the participant's perspective the movement

has a monopoly on systematic explanation, meaning, goals, and values, but the outside

world enforces large claims on his time, activity, resources, and at least surface,

loyalty. Technocracy, for instance, defines a number of Price System occupations a s

exploitative and/or unnecessary, yet participants must survive economically in the

Price System, and some a r e involved in those very occupations, such a s salesmanship

and advertising. The utopian, o r more recently named "intentional1' communities,

solve the dilemma of conflicts of interest, loyalty, membership and so forth, by

creating a new and totally separate society. The intentional community then often

achieves almost complete autonomy, and correspondingly can successfully define itself
a s the sole legitimate power with respect to members' behaviour.
NATURE OF CONTROL AND COMPLIANCE APPLICABLE TO PARTICIPANTS'~

The nature of participants' commitments to a movement is plainly not independ-

ent of the form and content of inducing conformity to the movement norms. James W.
Vander Zanden is succinct on this point where he says: "The Klan demands uncondi-

tional obedience to its rules and norms, and enforces them" .I1 And further: "The
result is that the individual tends to evaluate his behaviour according to the norms of
the Klan rather than of the society-at-large."'2 It is almost trite to observe that
reform-oriented movements a r e able to demand comparatively minimal life commit-
ments of participants by comparison with revolutionary (or counter-revolutionary)
ones, and a r e also likely to have limited means and accepted legitimations for attain-
ing compliance. That is to say that the range o r scope of matters (in terms of part-
icipants' behaviour) defined a s an area of legitimate concern to the movement is likely
to be quite limited for the reform movement. The revolutionary movement, on the
other hand, tends to take on more and more of the attributes, consciousness, and
prerogatives of a separate state o r society. The contemporary example that i s clear-
est is the U.S. Black Power movement(s). Witness demands f o r a separate state for
Blacks and claims to the right of self -policing in the Ghettos. The religious utopian
communities of the 1800ts in the U. S .A. and Canada in fact established largely separ-
ate states, and their conflicts with the 'host' state have most often been, at base,
conflicts over prerogatives of control and compliance. The control of schooling, a

central agency of socialization by and for the dominant groups in a society, has recently
become a concern of Black Nationalism, and has historically been a recurring focus
of conflict between the utopian communities and various segments of the wider society.
The examples given a r e either large-scale movements, o r ones existing in a historical
period when agricultural communes could exist relatively independently of the 'host'
societies. Contemporary small-scale revolutionary movements, however, have a dif -
ferent set of problems growing out of the contradictions between high goals combined
with the limited means and resources of such movements, a s discussed above. Unless
they create an isolated, independent community (the pragmatic possibilities of which

seem rapidly to be decreasing), coercion relating to all fundamental matters remains

the prerogative of the state, o r possibly the specific institution with which the move-

ment is in conflict.

It may well be that the elaborate and closely guarded 'secrets1, ritual, and

ceremony of some fraternal and secret societies, together with their imaginatively

macabre penalties for participants who reveal such 'secrets1 to outsiders, can be partly
13
understood a s a response to this contradiction. This i s only one way, of course, in
which a movement may respond to the dilemma implied in small-scale, highly alien-

ated (revolutionary) movements, and it i s also quite possible that such ritual becomes

functionally autonomous (that is, independent of its origins) and therefore may outlive

the tension that produced it. As a result, future changes may give such ritual a highly

anachronistic character.

NATURE OF DEFINITIONS OF PARTICIPANTS AND 'OUTSIDERS'

One of the more obvious differences between movements is the contrasting

manner in which they define the similarities, differences, and appropriate interaction

between members and non-members. At the most general level, increasing revolu-

tionary consciousness coincides with greater intensity and clarity of insider-outsider,

we-they, perceptions; while reform-oriented movements tend to blur these distinctions.

Initiation ceremonies, rituals, and various forms of rite-de-passage a r e plausible only

where at least two reference points, such a s statuses o r groups, a r e definable.

While the insider-outsider contrast may well be useful in examining changes in

some movements, and differences between movements, it becomes somewhat more

complex, and also potentially more instructive, where such definitions correspond

with and influence the additional dichotomous variable of the openness o r closedness

of the movement. In a small-scale revolutionary movement like Technocracy, for

instance, a contradiction arises between desires to recruit new members (who a r e

also, of course, "outsiders") and the increasingly closed 'boundaries' of the movement,

which, while serving to contrast, isolate, and protect the movement, may also be a
deterrent to recruitment. Furthermore, such movements frequently legitimize their
limited membership with an elitist doctrine like the one so explicit in the Technocracy

literature. This conception i s simply one specific variant on the llchosen people"

theme. Such doctrines may serve to further isolate the movement and make it inac-

cessible to outsiders if the extravagant definitions of insiders a r e translated into

admissions criteria. Usually, of course, the movement defines application for mem-

bership a s in itself sufficient evidence of at least the potential to achieve the lofty

plane of full-fledged membership. Potential recruits, however, observing the limited

public achievements of the movement in conjunction with the extravagant self-definitions

of participants, may simply write off the movement a s an increasing absurdity. While

we think that these observations may have wider relevance, they a r e at this stage pri-

marily a generalization of the history and development of Technocracy. Insiders a r e

defined a s part of an intellectual and moral elite. They a r e "educated", l'socially

conscious1', "aware of what is really going on1'. Outsiders a r e "conditioned by the

Price System1', "apathetic1', in other words, the very opposite of the 'good1 qualities

of participants. At times this contrast becomes lavish to say the least, when, for

instance, insiders a r e likened to social Galileos o r Leonardo da Vincis. At the same

time the movement has become increasingly alienated, closed, and secret, envision-

ing itself more and more a s a small island of enlightenment, afloat in a sea of hostile

and ignorant forces.

Given the above kinds of developments, we expect to find in similar movements,

and do observe with Technocracy, changes in the nature and scope of proselytizing

activities. In other words, given increasing closure and limited recruitment over a

time, resulting in doctrines (often elitist) to legitimize this state of affairs, we will
expect attempts at recruitment to decrease. This does not necessarily imply that the

movement will formally close its membership o r issue injunctions to members to

cease attempts to recruit. No matter how alienated and closed a movement becomes,

new recruitments still represent justification of the belief system. The Technocrats

today still go through the motions of seeking new members, for instance in the Public
Lecture and in the literature, but the response to those expressing interest is unen-

thusiastic to say the least. In one, not uncommon instance, I observed a potential
recruit who was quite eager to join, having considerable difficulty in finding a mem-

b e r willing to take the trouble to find the appropriate forms. This was not a question
of lack of knowledge of procedures o r authority on the part of members he approached,

a s two of them (out of three) were, in fact, on the membership committee. There is
some difficulty in coming to definite conclusions in this area, a s potential recruits a r e

so r a r e that the number of such observations is very small. The pattern of reluctant
recruitment was the same, however, in the several instances I did observe. 14 In
addition, members were consistent in telling me that they seldom initiated discussions
on Technocracy outside of section headquarters (at work o r with other acquaintances),

and then only when the other person seemed receptive. In this regard the socializa-
tion of two new members who joined while I was a participant, is instructive. Both
were eager to ''spread the wor8I about the movement, and several old timers under-

took to ease their anticipated disillusionment. Their eagerness to recruit was defined
for them a s a "stage" that all new members go through until they realize that "Tech-
nocracy is an educational organization that is interested only in certain people [that

small elite seen a s capable of understanding the ideas] and not the general publictt.
The term "educationalt1 here should not be passed over too quickly, for a s we have
noted previously, one of its meanings is: not activist. Should the new recruit start

advocating that "we do something about ..." he will be told that "Technocracy has no
assumption of power theory", and, "we a r e an educational organization concerned with
the functional elite capable of understanding what Technocracy meanst1. This used to

mean active leducationl of relevant outsiders a s well a s self-education of members.

Today, however, the latter is the primary and almost sole activity. The effectiveness

of this membership "education1' has already been touched upon, but deserves some
further mention. The following chapter deals with the "educated1 Technocrat.
 NOTES
1
Everett C. Hughes, "Social Change and Status Protest: An Essay on the
Marginal Man, l' Phylon, X, (First Quarter, 1949), pp. 61-62.
2
lbid., p. 63.
3
The distinction i s normally used with reference to large-scale movements, the
goals of which a r e society-wide. Nevertheless I consider it equally valid with refer-
ence to movements whose focus is on specific institutional areas. In other words I I
would arg-ue that a movement may hold revolutionam views on swcific institutional 1
arrangements without necessarily generalizing thesk to include the total societal struc-
ture. It may well be that such orientations a r e not ultimately viable, but this is another
matter. We may not consider beliefs in flying saucers a s tenable but this does not
remove such beliefs from existence and importance a s data.
4
.
E J. Hobsbawm, Primitive Rebels (New York: W. W. Norton and Company Inc.,
1959), pp. 10-11.
5
Ibid. p. 12.
6
Monthly Review, XX, No. 2, (June, 1968), p. 1.
"Reform and Rev~lution,~'
7
Bryan Wilson, "Millennialism In Comparative Perspective," Comparative
Studies in Society And History, X, I, (October, l963), p. 99.
8
James W. Vander Zanden, "The Klan Revival, l1 American Journal of Sociology,
LXV, (March, 1960), p. 461.
9
The YMCA has in recent years become so clearly a middle-class voluntary
association that its early history a s an evangelical and reform movement i s sometimes
forgotten. An interesting paper on this process of change from a movement to a volun-
t a w association is that bv Maver N. Zald and Patricia Denton, "From Evangelism to
~ e i e r a Service:
l The ~r"ansf6rmationof the YMCA," ~drninistrativescience Quarterly,
vm, (June, 1963), pp. 214-234.
lo
Amitai Etzioni has developed an extensive model of complex organizations
focussing on the concepts of coercion and compliance. See: Amitai Etzioni, A Com-
parative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York: The F r e e P r e s s , 1961). He
does not, however, consider movements as a possible focus for analysis within his
model, for the rather curious reason that "they a r e not organizations ." The relevant
section from his book is the following: "Social movements a r e not organizations. They
a r e not oriented to specific goals; their dominant subsystems a r e expressive and not
instrumental: there is little segregation between the various institutional spheres;
there is no systematic division of labour, power, and communication." (Etzioni, p. 53.)
We find these assertions curious ones for a sociologist to make about any group,
and in general, with the exception of the statement about "dominant subsystems1', which
we do not claim to understand, we would argue that the opposite of each of the asser-
tions i s closer to the truth.

l1 Vander Zanden, p. 461.

l2 Ibid.
l3 Noel P. Gist has written an interesting article on this subject of secret society
ceremonials, with special emphasis on common themes in these affairs. See: Noel P.
Gist, lfCulture Patterning In Secret Society Ceremonials," Social Forces, XTV, No. 4,
(May, 1963), pp. 497-505.
 Recurrent themes include: rite-de -passage, the 'j ourneyl, death, re-birth, o r
resurrection. Symbolically the participant has been reborn into a new order, a new
world, with new commitments, constraints, and norms. Gist includes several of the
oaths relating to failure to keep secret the affairs of the society: e. g., "that his hair
be torn from his scalp, his scalp torn from his body, and his body burned to ashes and
'scattered to the four winds of heaven' should he ever betray his obligation." (Gist,
p. 436). One of the Masonic oaths runs: "under no less a penalty than having my throat
cut across, my tongue torn out by its roots and buried in the rough sands of the sea at
."
low water mark where the tide ebbs and flows once in twenty four hours (Ibid.)
l4
The indicators of this increasing isolation a r e not only to be identified in terms
of proselytization. The movement defines itself, a s we have seen, a s a 'research1
organization. Little o r no systematic research in fact takes place today except the
following kind of activity, which i s indicative of the movement's current conception of
research. When a subject is defined a s a matter to be more extensively examined (for
publication o r public lectures) a member i s assigned to do a survey of back issues of
the Technocracy journals to see what previous articles on the subject a r e available.
On two such occasions I offered to assist by making university library facilities avail-
able, and in both cases the members concerned indicated that the demands of the
research could adequately be met by the back issues of movement journals. This
contemporary manner of doing 'research' i s in contrast with earlier points where
'outside' resources (libraries, government reports, and statistics from a wide variety
of sources) were commonly utilized.
 CHAPTER FOURTEEN

THE EDUCATED TECHNOCRAT AND THE FUTURE OF THE MOVEMENT

The comprehensiveness of the Technocratic model and the extent to which it i s

internalized by participants cannot be overestimated. An informed observer listening

to two strangers conversing on social affairs could quite probably identify either one

as a Technocrat in the f i r s t five minutes of discussion. The style, the language, and
the recurrent phrases a r e unique (often reminiscent of a combination of Veblen, Will

Rogers, and Mencken) and common to all Technocrats. The homogeneity of Techno-

cratic discussions becomes even more pronounced when the subject i s the movement

itself. In this area there is no ambiguity o r heterogeneity of response. The answer

given by almost any Technocrat about the movement and its beliefs, will normally be

similar to that of any other member's, including identical wording. I found this to be

true even with ex-Technocrats who had been out of the movement for 20 o r more years. I

The movement has always been sensitive to outside questioning and criticism and has

consistently provided the membership with carefully constructed answers to the common

o r recurrent criticisms. Two main documents that met this need were: "Technocracy:

Some Questions Answered1',2 and Total Conscription: Your Questions Answered1 .=

These were ostensibly directed toward non-members; however, they were utilized

widely by members a s a kind of dictionary of answers to crucial questions. The-

Technocracy Digest carried for a number of years a section entitled: "A Question

Answered', which reprinted questions and answers from the above documents and also

added new ones that were contemporarily relevant. Digest articles themselves often

quote (without so noting) entire sections from the above and other official pamphlets.

The result is that in discussing Technocracy with a member, one often has the feeling

of having a conversation with a 'direct quote'.

I expect that within the literature on movements, the commonest kind of inter-

pretation of these latter observations would be a s a kind of authoritarian reiteration of

a doctrinaire party line.

 We would argue that this homogeneity of Technocratic response i s not so much

an authoritarian subservience to a written 'line' a s it i s indicative of the non-innovative,

caretaking nature of Technocracy today. These standard, slogan-like responses a r e ,

then, less authoritarian, disciplined, 'correct' answers, than they a r e a kind of short-

hand, growing increasingly stale through lack of innovation. This ideological inertia

i s , we would argue, primarily attributable to the decreasing priority placed on prose-

lytization. In a dynamic movement, the ideology i s constantly being contested, and

clearly one of the most sensitive and important foci of this debate i s the recurrent

situation of attempted recruitment. The recruitment situation i s the most concrete

and intimate feedback for the movement on the value of its belief system. It provides

(potentially) a means of assessing current general response to the movement a s well

a s specific 'problems' that tend consistently to deter recruitment. Proselytizing

activities initiate an interaction whereby ideology may be modified. This i s not to say

that the belief system is infinitely malleable. Some positions may be altered o r

dropped entirely, while in other areas the response i s to develop a more extensive and

rigorous set of arguments. This latter alternative results in an extensive 'recruitment

script' whereby the movement recruiter is able to anticipate all of the usual arguments

and can provide a strong rebuttal. In this situation the recruiter has an obvious argu-

mentative advantage since he has answers to more questions than the outsider has yet

even thought of. Any reader who has conversed with a Jehovah's Witness will recog-

nize this situation. Technocrats a r e not, however, like the Jehovah's Witnesses in

that their ideology has changed and altered more readily through the years in response

to debate. With the gradual inward turn of the movement, and the corresponding

decline of proselytization attempts, the intense interaction that challenged the value

and contemporary relevance of the ideas has gradually been eliminated.

A problem related to this question of authoritarian dogma, and to the.homo-

geneity of Technocratic responses to questions, i s the common definition of Techno-

cracy a s American Fascism. In several senses the definition i s valid. The organi-

zational structure is clearly authoritarian, a s is the model of the technological army

of the new society. The Technate, a s envisioned in the literature, would completely

eliminate the public's access to political decision making. The s t r e s s on discipline,

the unquestioning obedience, the exclusion of aliens, and the emphasis on the omni-

potence of the leader, a r e all congruent with a Fascist movement. While the move-
ment, in response to this label, has disavowed such a description and attempted to

define itself a s the most adamant opponent of Fascism on the continent, this in itself

could easily be dismissed a s pure rhetoric. Members, nevertheless, unanimously

express a profound conviction that Technocracy has no basic affinity at all with any

form of Fascism. Now this, too, could also be interpreted a s the not uncommon

phenomenon of believing one's own propaganda. There a r e other factors, however,

that make me consider that the Fascist label is misleading. To understand this, it i s

necessary to reiterate briefly some of the basics of Technocratic ideas.

In the first place, Technocrats utilize Veblen's distinction between Business

and Industry. Secondly, they believe that there i s a natural "logic" o r process of

Industry that could, if allowed to operate unimpeded by Business, produce abundance

for all in North America. This paradox (for them) of scarcity within the context of a

potential abundance is perhaps the most basic, and at least the most oft repeated

Technocratic concern. It may not be logically most central, but it i s the tap root of

participants' consciousness.

Technocrats also tend to see politics and business a s largely synonymous.

They a r e impediments to the "free flow1' of industry. Lastly, the Technocrats1 posi-

tivistic pseudo-science results in a belief that all problems of significance have right

and wrong answers, and that the right answers may be determined by the appropriate

experts. A favorite Technocratic example i s the statement: "You don't ask people to

take a vote on how to build a bridge, you ask an engineert1. The net result of these

ideas i s that most Technocrats simply DO NOT RECOGNIZE that any significant

problem arises in the choice of ends, o r in the relationship of values to decision

making. In response to questions on possible limitations of freedom in the Technate,

a Technocrat cannot comprehend such a question, a s his basic image of the Technate
i s one of economic freedom (abundance of access to material goods) and ten times the

amount of leisure time currently available. The envisioned organizational apparatus

i s seen, not a s a form of government exercising power, but simply a problem of effi-

cient managem.ent. Incomes would be abundant and equal, and the organizational and

industrial elite would, in their understanding, have advantages only in the sense of

presumably higher prestige. As Elsner noted: "It i s an engineering rather than an

4
engineer's ideology". Elsner also conducted a questionnaire survey of a number of
6
ex-Technocrats and summarized their responses a s consistently non-authoritarian.

One ex-Technocrat whom I interviewed characterized the movement a s right-

wing in terms of organizational form but left-wing in terms of content. The stance

taken today by the movement on various issues (and the events it defines a s issues)

would tend to support this. In Current Events classes, for instance, the organization

i s most usually in agreement with articles in Ramparts, The Nation, and The Progres-

sive, and in opposition to those in U .S. News and World Report,

- and Business Week.

Members tend to think that the CCF and now the NDP were/are "not radical enoughTT,

but more acceptable than the Conservatives o r Social Credit. In general, the Technate

is very similar to Bellamy's socialism in Looking Backward, which, while it was

attacked a s rigid and mechanistic, was never confused with Fascism. The term

"authoritarian of the Left" has become more common recently, and some might tend

to apply this label to Technocracy. In terms of the meaning of the movement to

members, and their characteristic responses to events (as opposed to the logic of the

official ideology), this would be a serious misinterpretation. Members simply do not

seem to have a s priorities concerns with conventionalism, obedience, respect for

authority, preoccupations with strength-weakness, o r any of the other classic authori-

tarian concerns.

But the final question on this specific movement, Technocracy, is yet to be

stated, and that is: but what of the movement today, o r when does a movement cease

to be a movement? The literature on movements contains a large number of contrast-

ing and conflicting definitions of social movements. The manner, then, in which we
answer the question of when a movement ceases to be a movement will differ substan-

tially depending upon the definition of movements with which we a r e operating. Despite
conflicts in the literature over what does o r does not constitute a movement, I think

that most students of movements would be in agreement that Technocracy Inc. is no

longer a social movement, and has become a sect-like organization of primarily a

'caretaking' nature.

Technocracy has clearly been a declining movement for a number of years,

with increasingly less ability both to retain and to recruit members. The fact that its

current (and in all probability, final) section headquarters in Vancouver is in what used

to be a funeral home has an ironic symbolic significance.

The movement may simply fade away gradually a s recruitment fails to keep

pace with the mortality rate of old members. Alternatively, the loss of Howard Scott

(who is now quite an old man) could precipitate a crisis of leadership that might des -

troy what remains.

It i s difficult to estimate just how important Scott i s to the movement today.

In its dynamic phases he was for participants a classical charismatic figure. Descrip-

tions of him were hyperbolic to say the least, and his abilities and accomplishments,

though shrouded in some mystery, were the foundation on which an elaborate structure

of myth, anecdote, and legend were erected. These numerous and grandiose legends

contributed to making Scott an almost messianic figure for the Technocrats. In 1933

Allen Raymond wrote a book called What Is Technocracy?, which included a collection

of some of these myths (a number more have been created since), and he summarizes

his observations with what I consider a rather apt comparison. He says: "the Scott

legend has grown until in Bohemia the techno-scientist bids fair to be a gorgeous,

entertaining myth, travelling down the ages as a man of infinite abilities and gargantuan

feats; the type of character Paul Bunyan is in the lore of the logging camps."

Scott's significance to the continuation of the movement today i s highly problem-

atic. H he i s a factor at all it can only be in a symbolic way, as, while he i s nominally

still the leader, he no longer communicates directly with members outside of CHQ at
all. He does not travel o r give speeches (for a period in the 19501s, tapes of his talks

were sent to the western sections and played to the membership) and has not written

articles f o r the journals f o r a number of years. In fact, this lack of communication

has been s o complete that his continued existence is increasingly a matter of faith.

This withdrawal from active participation may diminish the importance for the move-

ment of his eventual death. Though Milton Ivie has largely supplanted Scott a s move-

ment ideologue he does not have any substance o r meaning f o r members a s THE leader,

and I doubt that he could, in fact, replace Scott in this role. He certainly could not

inherit Scott's symbolic significance. If the issue of Scott's successor were to be-

come a major focus of conflict in the movement, I seriously doubt that at this stage

it could survive.

In any event, s o much of Technocracy's belief system i s today s o anachronistic ?

that it is unlikely that the current debilitating ratio of participant mortality to recruit-
ment will be reversed. Hence the 'death' of Technocracy, so often previously "greatly

exaggerated' seems finally to be inevitable in the near future.

 162

NOTES
1
Such persons may of course be slightly less consistent. I interviewed one ex-
Technocrat several times, and when in the course of our first conversation I asked him
about the question of Technocracyts means of attaining its goals, his response was
hesitant and not congruent with the standard answer. On the occasion of our second
conversation, however, he immediately recalled the question and said: "In the days
gone by when I was up to date I would have told you right away that Technocracy has
no assumption of power theory!' The latter part of the sentence is of course the
'correctT answer.
L
M. Adamson and R.I. Moore, ed., Technocracy: Some Questions Answered
(New York: Technocracy Inc. , 1934).
3
Technocracy Inc., Total Conscription, Your Questions Answered (New York:
1942).
4
Elsner, p. 369.
5
Ibid., p. 372.
6
It could be argued quite reasonably that it was this very characteristic (non-
authoritarian attitudes) that led ElsnerTsrespondents to become ex-Technocrats. Our
claim then, that current participants a r e generally non-authoritarian would be open to
some question. On the other hand, my own observation (admittedly limited in this
area) i s that ex-Technocrats do not seem to differ significantly from current members
in terms of authoritarianism. The prime issue on which the two groups seem to differ
appears to have been "activism". That is, ex-Technocrats seem more often to have left
the movement because they felt that it was not "doing enough" to achieve its goals than
because they considered its ideology o r structure to have been excessively authoritarian.
7
Raymond, p. 105.
 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The questions about Technocracy that were outlined in Chapter One and ex-

amined in subsequent chapters a r e not the concerns normally given the highest

priority in most other studies of social movements. Most studies, for instance, give

priority to explaining either the causes of a particular movement o r to developing a

more general explanation of the social conditions that favour the emergence of move-

ments. Quite often such explanations revolve around categories of people (either

sociological o r psychological) whom, it is argued, constitute the most probable parti-

cipants in the movement(@. While such matters a r e of obvious importance, we have

largely disregarded them in connection with Technocracy, and some explanation of

this limitation in the study is in order.

In the first place we suffer from a basic lack of data, particularly in t e r m s of

the early stages of the movement with regard to the kinds of people who tended to be

recruited to Technocracy. Other studies on the movement contain either very limited

o r no information on the subject, and if the Technocrats have such information, the

currently secretive policies of the movement make it unavailable. Consequently, what

little data a r e obtainable preclude making any solid conclusions. The remaining mem-

bership (in Vancouver) tends to be made up mainly of people in lower level white collar

occupations; however this i s of limited significance as we have no reliable information

on the kinds of people who dropped out of the movement at various times. Lack of data

is not the sole reason that we have not spent a great deal of time attempting to explain
either the causes of the movement o r the kinds of people who joined. There a r e also

theoretical reasons.

Most explanations of the emergence of social movements that I find convincing

utilize (in one way o r another) the concept of relative deprivation. There a r e , however,

some inherent limitations in this concept, that, in the case of Technocracy, become

particularly evident.
 The idea of relative deprivation, while not independent of economic determin-

ants, grows primarily out of appreciation of the limitations of simpler economic argu-

ments. Absolute levels of deprivation, be the criteria power, economics, o r freedom,

o r a s is more realistic, a combination of all three, simply do not provide a viable

indication of propensities to revolution, movements, and so forth. Revolution is not

metric. Theories of relative deprivation build on the idea that movements a r e a prod-

uct of people perceiving themselves to be inordinately deprived relative to some other

group, a n d o r their own altered expectations. Lipset says:

The real question to answer is: which states a r e most 'displaced' in each
country? In some it is the new working class, o r the working class which was
never integrated in the total society, economically o r politically; in others it
is the small businessman and other relatively independent entrepreneurs
(small farm owners, provincial lawyers) who feel oppressed by the growing
power and status of unionized workers and by large scale corporative and
governmental bureaucracies. In still others it is the conservative and tradi-
tionalist elements who seek to preserve the old society from the values of
socialism and liberalism.

A common thesis in this framework i s that group X participates in, creates,

o r has a propensity f o r movements o r revolution because of its members' increased

but unmet expectations. One process seen as conducive to this perception is when a

group experiences increased vertical mobility opportunities for a period, and then i s

confronted with either limitations o r blockages to the continuation of this mobility. An

interrelated argument holds that some structural dysfunction either changes, threatens,

o r makes ambiguous in various ways a previously valued social position, and that this

is where we look for susceptibility to movements. Examples of the first thesis a r e to

be found in various scholarly (and less than scholarly) accounts of current racial con-

frontations in the U.S.A., as well a s in discussions of Quebec ~ a t i o n a l i s m(also

~ in

some works on the "natural history" of revolution3). The second kind of explanation

is used extensively by students of the American Radical Right, Fascism (American and

European), and the Ku Klux Klan.

The extent to which hypothetical group X actually contributes, forms, o r is the

source of support, f o r specific movements i s not always convincingly demonstrated.'

This i s not to deny the potential value of the idea of relative deprivation in some
circumstances, and even less to backslide into 'absolute' arguments. One of the
fundamental problems with the concept is put clearly by David Aberle when he notes

that:

It has a certain excessive flexibility. It is always possible after the fact to

find deprivation .5

It remains, then, for the theorist to demonstrate why the particular deprivation in

question was significant, and further to explain why numerous other situations of de-

privation did not have similar effects. To explain in terms of degrees of severity

would seem to be backsliding to an absolute deprivation position.

In any case, Technocracy started in 1932, in a period in which it would be

difficult to find any large group of people who were not rather seriously deprived,

relative to their previous condition at least. Now different writers consider various

kinds of deprivation to be more o r less significant in terms of contributing to the

emergence of movements. Nevertheless, during the e r a of the Great Depression the

conditions specified by almost any movement theorist, as either necessary o r suffi-

cient for the emergence of movements, were present in abundance. We suffer, then,

not from a paucity of possible factors, but from an overabundance of plausible reasons

for the materialization of Technocracy (or any other movement) during this period,

and given the limitations in our information, no way of distinguishing one o r other

interpretation a s being more o r less significant. The "excessive flexibility" intrinsic

to the concept of relative deprivation, noted by Aberle, i s particularly important then

with regard to the case of Technocracy. Therefore, the 'why' of Technocracy occur-

ring when it did, o r the question of its social basis of recruitment did not seem to be

the most fruitful questions that might be examined.

A QUESTION OF DEFINITION

Throughout this study we have referred to Technocracy a s a social movement,

although, a s we noted in Chapter One, it did not fit satisfactorily into the more common

typologies of movements throughout its entire history and, at some points, different

branches of the movement developed in contrary directions. There a r e a considerable

number of contrasting definitions in the literature of just what does o r does not con-

stitute a social movement. Despite this diversity of conceptions, Technocracy usually

fits most definitions in at least some of the stages of its development. During the early

period of high public interest in 1932-1933, for instance, the affair seemed to be

adequately described by Blumerl s definition of a Generalized Movement (see Chapter

Five). Between 1934 and 1940 the Generalized Movement crystalized into a more
.
organized, goal-oriented, ideologically coherent organization, which could be con-

sidered a social movement by almost any of the more common definitions. The main

difficulty, regardless of the definition utilized, is to decide at just what point, if any,

Technocracy ceased to be a social movement. To examine this problem a little further

we will focus on one particular definition of a social movement that has been formulated

by David Aberle. He says:

A social movement is an organized effort by a group of human beings to effect

change in the face of resistance by other human being^.^

Technocracy clearly fell within this framework at some points in its history.

It remains to see at what point it ceased, according to this definition, to be a social

movement. The two key points in Aberlels definition in this regard seem to be: (a)

the continued effort to "effect changef1, and (b) the by others. An impor-

tant theme throughout this study has been the waxing and waning of the Technocrats'

active efforts to effect social change. As we have seen the matter became, on some

occasions, a major issue in the movement, resulting in internal schisms. The Total

Conscription program seems to have been the last major effort on the part of the

movement to actually effect social change, although the program of parades and

speaking tours between 1945 and 1948 could also be seen a s efforts (admittedly minor)

to achieve changed goals. By 1948 it was debatable to what extent the movement was

seeking to effect change; in fact this was, in large part, the basic issue of the conflict

that occurred at that time. All of the movement1s attempts to effect change were met

with resistance on the part of non-Technocrats, but after 1948 the movement's public

activities became so limited that there was, in effect, nothing to resist. In the light
of the definitions of movements that we have been dealing with (Aberle and Blurrier) it

would seem that Technocracy started in 1932-1933 a s a Generalized Movement, devel-

oped into a movement proper (in terms of Aberle's definition) in 1933-1934 and main-

tained itself as such into the late 1940's o r early 19507s, at which point it can no longer

be referred to a s a movement. There remains, nevertheless, one other difficulty in

this matter of when i s a movement no longer a movement - that is, from whose per-

spective is the matter to be judged? The observations above, for instance, a r e clearly

those of an outside observer, applying the specific criteria of particular definitions.

We might well arrive at different conclusions if we ask: When did Technocracy cease

to be a movement from its members' point of view? I think that most of the current
membership in Technocracy would argue that it i s still a movement, and that while its
role in effecting change is now perhaps less extensive and active than previously, its

"educativef' work still constitutes an effort to "get the message acrosstf. At the same
time Technocrats would probably acknowledge that the past 15 years o r so have been
rather a slack period, but that when the Price System starts to break down, a s i s in-
evitable, the movement will experience a great resurgence. This does suggest the
question of just what a r e the conditions that would either inhibit o r facilitate the rehabili-
tation o r revival of old movements.
In any event, both the final disposition and the initial causes of this movement
a r e of less importance to this study than a r e questions regarding the internal changes

and conflicts that characterized its history.

In Chapter One we outlined several questions about the history and development
of the movement that would concern u s and it i s perhaps well to reiterate these again

a t this point. We observed, in the first place, that the movement had experienced two

major conflicts and schisms around the issue of the role that it should play in effecting

social change, and secondly that the movement had oscillated both between active and

passive roles and between reformist and revolutionary perspectives. A central theme

was to be: (a) what factors contributed to such fluctuations? and (b) what other attri-

butes of the movement seemed to vary with these changes? (time perspectives, re-

cruitment patterns, organizational structure, nature of control, compliance, and

commitment in relation to members).

Now my observations and conclusions on some of these matters have been dealt

with fairly comprehensively in the immediately preceeding chapters (12, 13, 14) and

it would therefore seem redundant to re-examine them at this point. On the other hand,
some summarization of the above themes as handled in earlier chapters runs less risk

of redundancy.

The first major conflict was that between the Continental Committee and Tech-

nocracy Inc. It is extremely difficult to even speculate intelligently on the factors

causing this conflict. In the first place very little detailed information was ever re-

corded on this period of the movement. About the only sources of data that a r e avail-

able a r e sketchy newspaper accounts and the often failing and obviously biased memories

of surviving Technocrats. The movement consisted, at this stage, of a highly dis-

organized conglomeration of disparate groups. Our knowledge about many of them is

restricted to their name and geographic location. Nevertheless, it does seem fairly

clear that a factor that contributed to the emergence of the Continental Committee a s

a competitor to Scott's group was the organizational and ideological vacuum created

by Scott's unwillingness o r inability to provide any sort of organizational leadership.

The intense public interest had, of course, taken all members of the Energy

Survey by surprise, but while Scott demonstrated a unique ability to fan the flames of

public interest at this point, he seemed totally unable to give any organizational leader-

ship. His prophecies of doom became increasingly adamant, while his responses on

the matter of "what is to be done?" became, if anything, more vague. His academic

associates a t Columbia found his behaviour increasingly embarrassing and finally he

was ousted from the Energy Survey. This break with Columbia and the Survey appears

to have been a factor in encouraging the members of the Continental Committee to

consider starting their own branch of Technocracy. In any event, if the causes of

this split a r e not altogether clear, we do have more detailed knowledge about both

the effects on the two groups and the content of the debate between them.

It was not until the Continental Committee separated from Scott's group that
any real attempt was made to actually develop an organized movement. That i s , to
develop a coherent ideology, plan tactics, and recruit members. In a sense, then,

the actual movement (as distinct from the Generalized Movement) started with two

competing branches. The Technocrats (of either group) were faced, not only with the

resistence of non-Technocratic critics and opponents, but also with the competition of

an alternative Technocratic movement. We argued previously that the consequence of

this competition was that both groups took the other a s a negative reference group

through which (in part at least) their own nature was defined. This meant that both

groups were more restricted in terms of alternatives with regard to both ideology and

tactics than would otherwise have been the case. As the more reform-oriented Con-

tinental Committee drifted toward amalgamation with various other movements and

absorption into the New Deal, Technocracy Inc. became increasingly alienated from

the Price System, and completely opposed to piecemeal reform programs (in terms

of its own activity) and reform movements. From this point forward Technocracy Inc.

was to be concerned with a total re-structuring of Price System social structure. If

there had been any doubts in Scott's mind regarding compromise with reform per-

spectives and cooperation with reform-oriented groups, the conflict with the Contin-

ental Committee, and the eventual fate of that group, removed them.

Between 1934 and the Second World War, Technocracy Inc. developed into a

highly organized movement of relatively extensive proportions. Scott predicted in

1935 that the Price System would collapse by 1937, and when that event failed to

materialize, that the end would surely come prior to 1940. As we argued previously,

it appears that most of the membership were in a state of "tense expectation" of the
imminent collapse of the system and advent of the Technocratic millennium. The

movement had, in this period, no program (in the usual sense) for actually effecting

social change, a s the belief in inevitable and relatively immediate collapse owing to

"internal contradictionsll precluded the necessity of "making the revolutionf1. There

were occasional hints from CHQ that under certain circumstances the leadership

might decide to hasten the natural course of events somewhat, but in the main, the
conception was that the role of Technocracy Inc. would be to 'pick up the pieces' when

the Price System crumbled.

We have noted at various points throughout the thesis that Technocracy Inc.

shared some of the attributes associated with millennia1 movements. The parallels

between such movements and Technocracy a r e strongest in the earlier years, but a r e

also apparent up until the Second World War. Throughout the decade of the 1930's

Technocracy Inc. regarded the millennium a s imminent and its members lived "in

tense expectation and preparation f o r it1'; the extent and intensity of memberst com-

mitment of personal loyalty and resources to the movement in this period was very

high. It is not recorded that anyone burned down either homes o r crops in anticipa-

tion of the millennium, but a good proportion did orient their lives s o that their

central preoccupation was with building the movement. As we argued in Chapter One,

the question of time orientation (that is, when the millennium is to be expected) and

the sort of preparations that a r e regarded a s appropriate, a r e highly interdependent.

One other matter should be recalled here. As Talmon says: "The followers of these

movements a r e not the makers of the revolution; they expect it to be brought about

miraculously from above." Now so long a s the members accept the prophecy of an

imminent millennium it seems unlikely that they will feel any need to themselves Ifmake

the revolutiont1. If, on the other hand, the prophecy fails, o r i s in one way o r another

called into question, some members may begin to wonder if perhaps there is not some

more active role for them to play in hastening the arrival of the new day. Between

1934 and 1940 the main preparations of the Technocrats involved spreading the word,

recruiting participants, and building a cohesive movement. The role the movement

was to play when the system collapsed was not totally clear. It varied between taking

complete political power and acting a s a sort of caretaking militia to maintain social
order and economic production. There was little debate though, that forces intrinsic

to the Price System were to be the causes of the collapse and not the Technocrats.

There was some dissention on this matter, but dissidents were quickly 'educatedt into

the correct line.

 With the advent of the Second World War the Technocrats developed a program

called Total Conscription that clearly implied a f a r more active role in terms of

effecting change. The earlier hints that under certain circumstances the movement

might act to hasten the coming of the millennium seemed to be being fulfilled. It is'
difficult to account f o r this change in direction a s a consequence of internal changes,

disillusionment with the failure of the main prophecy, o r anything of that sort, a s the

program seems to have originated in its entirety from CHQ and Howard Scott. Explana-

tion, then, must be in terms of the possible motivations of Howard Scott, a project

that, for obvious reasons, I am not enthusiastic about. Nevertheless, I did argue in

Chapter Eight that it is at least plausible that the program was a result of Scott's

anticipation that the effects of the war on the Price System economy would prevent

his prophecy of Price System collapse prior to 1940 from coming true.

The anticipated collapse had already been postponed once in 1937, and he may

well have expected that a second postponement would be badly received by the move-

ment. If this was, in fact, his line of thought, we must conclude that in initiating the

program he either acted in cynical self-interest in order to maintain control, o r that

he acted in good faith but vastly misread both the strength of the movement and the

public mood. In any event, whatever the reasons for the program, the results (except

in terms of Scott's control of the movement) were disastrous. The public, f a r from

welcoming the Technocratic saviours, responded with hostility and ridicule, and in

Canada the movement was labeled subversive, and banned. The Price System did not

collapse, and even though the Technocrats argued (somewhat conversely in terms of

the original rationale for the Conscription program) that only the economic effects of

the war saved the Price System, the prophecy had clearly failed. It was now not at all

clear just when the millennium was to be expected, a s no new date had been set. At

the same time a new precedent had been established in terms of the sort of role the

movement might play in effecting change. The rule of ''no political activity" that had

become established in the conflict with the Continental Committee, had been broken.

The dogma that "Technocracy has no assumption of power theory", had been discarded,
at least on this occasion.

Despite the failure of the Total Conscription program, the ban on the Canadian

wing of the movement, and the inevitable dislocation of the members because of the

war, the movement managed to survive this period. The scope of its activities and its

membership size were decreased, but it was still relatively extensive, as the earlier

account (see Chapter Nine) of its activities in the post-war period indicates. By 1947

and 1948, however, we can begin to observe a decline in both the scope and (in terms

of the movement's own ideology) quality of movement activities. The Total Conscrip-

tion Program had been a turning point in its direction, and the conflict of 1948 became

another.

We a r e in a somewhat more favourable position with regard to explaining this

aspect of its development than we were in dealing with either the conflict between the

Continental Committee and Technocracy Inc., o r the initiation of the Total Conscrip-

tion program. In the first place, we have considerably more information on the move-

ment in 1948 than in 1932-1933, and secondly, the situation in 1948 i s more clearly

attributable to changes in the movement rather than the result of the motivations and

actions of Howard Scott, a s seems to have been the case in the Total Conscription

program.

In one sense the conflict of 1948 was a consequence of a failure of prophecy that

had occurred eight years earlier. The fact that the Price System had not collapsed a s

anticipated had, of course, been rationalized o r , 'explained awayt by movement leaders.

Such explanations seem to have been generally accepted by the membership, at least to

the extent that a good number maintained their participation in the movement, and there

was no outright challenge to the leadership. Nevertheless, with the failure of the

Total Conscription program, and in the absence of a specific reformulated prophecy

about when the end of the Price System was to be expected, memberst time perspec-

tives on the 'inevitablet millennium became increasingly vague and long range. We

argued earlier that participants' attitude of "tense expectationt1militated against the

emergence of conflict about the most appropriate role for members to play in terms
of effecting change. One other observation is relevant in this context. The idea of
the inevitable collapse of a social structure, owing to its own intrinsic contradictions,

is admirably suited to a small, largely powerless social movement with revolutionary

goals, such a s Technocracy, in that the scope of the changes seen a s required would

otherwise be f a r beyond the resources of the movement itself. In other words, the

movement couldn't "make the revolutionlf, so it i s just a s well that it doesn't have to.

Nevertheless, neither the idea of "inevitability1' o r of "imminence1' of major change,

totally precludes the possibility of some participation on the part of the movement in

bringing about change, a s we have seen in the instance of the Total Conscription pro-

gram. This program failed however, the Price System did not collapse, no new date

for its demise was announced, and the way was clear for some Technocrats to begin to

question their previous conceptions about program and tactics.

F o r several years after the war the program of extensive speaking tours and

active recruitment, and the "Symbolization1' program, seemed sufficient to convince

most participants that the movement was still a "functioning organization1'. By 1947,

however, there was a noticeable decline in both the scope and quality of Technocratic

activities in contrast with both pre- and post-war levels. There was also a significant

decrease in the leadership provided by CHQ, to the extent that members began asking

just what was the matter with Scott, and to wonder just who, in fact, constituted the

Board of Governors. A more structural factor that contributed to the eventual con-

frontation was the lfOperation Columbia1' and tlOperation Golden Gate1' programs, whcih

brought together a large number of Technocrats who normally were relatively isolated

from each other. These meetings allowed potential dissidents to discover wider support

f o r their ideas than was perhaps available in their local sections. Finally, a number

of members met Scott at these affairs, either for the first time o r for the first time in

many years, and in some cases the experience was disillusioning.

The original intent of the dissident group was to reform Technocracy Inc. Scott's

response made this impossible, with the result that a new Technocracy group, the

Technodemocrats, emerged. This group followed the same pattern as the earlier
Continental Committee. They were more reformist in their goals than Technocracy

Inc. and envisioned a more active role f a r participants in effecting social change.

Like the Continental Committee, they had a tendency to make alliances with other

movements, a practice that resulted in a very short life span. As a social movement

the Technodemocrats never really 'got off the ground1. It i s doubtful, for instance,

if they were ever able to recruit any members who had not previously been Techno-

crats. Nevertheless the effect of the schism on Technocracy Inc. was significant. In

the first place the membership of Technocracy was reduced substantially. In addition,

the movement (to use its own term) "closed ranks". It became increasingly closed and

sectarian, and more and more isolated from the larger society. As we have seen, this

produced some interesting problems for the membership inasmuch a s members also

had lives to live in the Price System. Internally the movement became more central-

ized and authoritarian. Members were required to sign oaths of loyalty to Howard

Scott and an unnamed Board of Governors. Local sections could not even mail a

letter without having the content approved by CHQ. Any debate on goals o r tactics

became interpreted a s a lack of faith in, o r lack of loyalty to, Howard Scott. The

overall effect was a small cohesive sect, patiently and loyally awaiting a millennium

in some distant future.

Between 1948 and the present there have been no important conflicts and no

important ideological changes with regard to tactics. No factions have emerged to

challenge either goals o r tactics, and, a s we have seen, such matters a r e less and

less the subject of even casual discussion. The reason for this placid state of affairs

is in itself an interesting question. Unfortunately I have little to offer in the nature of

an explanation. Nevertheless, by way of speculation, there a r e I think several impor-

tant factors. In the first place, the nature of the 1948 conflict was such a s to eliminate

participants who were not prepared to swear unquestioning obedience to Howard Scott

and blind obedience and loyalty to the unnamed Board of Governors. In the second

place, recruitment since 1948 has been s o limited that the essentially loyalist nature

of the membership has not been altered by recruitment. Moreover, what members
have been recruited have immediately been indoctrinated into the "This is a research

and education organization1' line. Perhaps the most important factor in explaining

this conspicuous lack of internal conflict i s the comprehensive social control mechan-

isms that have been developed in the movement since the 1948 schism. As we demon-

strated in some detail in Chapters Twelve, Thirteen and Fourteen, this control is

exercised down to the smallest detail of Technocracy Inc. business.

There i s one further, more general, observation that I think is relevant in

terms of this question of the lack of internal conflict in the later stages of this move-

ment. It has been implicit, but I think nevertheless obvious, throughout this thesis,

that I interpret social movements a s rather more consciously goal-oriented than many

other social groupings. That i s to say, that movement members tend to be more

conscious of the extent to which the movement i s , o r is not, attaining its goals, than

a r e participants in other social groups. A movement i s predicated on the basis of

solving what members feel to be an immediate and important social problem, a

problem moreover, that they regard a s beyond the means (or purposes) of the normal

institutional framework. The result is that the internal pressures (or external ones)

that lead to the emergence of conflict, factions, and schisms in movements, a r e very

often directly related to the extent to which members perceive the movement a s

attaining o r failing to attain its change-oriented goals. As we noted earlier in this

chapter, although it i s difficult to specify an exact point at which Technocracy ceased

to be a movement, it does seem clear that by the early 1950's any question of the

members of ~ e c h n o c r a ceffecting
~ social change was completely eliminated. At that

time the organization's goals started to change. Technocracy increasingly came to be

concerned almost solely with the "educational" and other social needs of its own

members. It remains part of the official ideology that when, in some distant future,

the Price System collapses, the Technocrats will have some role to play. Neverthe-

less, the main demand of the membership now seems to be that the organization con-

tinue to provide a sort of current affairs program that gives members an "inside

track1' on what i s "really happening" in the world. In addition, for the remaining
Technocrats who participate in the organization on a regular basis, Technocracy activi-

ties form an important part of their social life. The result i s that the organization in
its present form successfully meets the goals of the current membership, the change-

oriented goals having been gradually abandoned.

There remains one further observation that I wish to make. This study has

directed its attention toward an area of the study of movements that is inadequately

represented in the literature on movements; that i s to say, the study of the dynamics

of internal change in a social movement. In one sense Technocracy was ideal a s a

subject. It had a long history marked by internal conflict and change. At the same

time, this movement was a f a r from ideal subject in that much of the kind of detailed

information that would be necessary to an adequate study of the earlier period of the

movement is simply no longer in existence. In addition, other areas of data were not

available because of the organization's currently closed and secretive nature. On the

more recent history of the movement, f a r more data were a t hand, but this period

was, of course, that time when the 'movement', was characterized by neither change

nor conflict, the subjects of our interest. We have been plagued, then, throughout

with the paradox of abundant data only on the subjects in which we were least interested.
 NOTES
1
S. M. Lipset, Political Man; The Social Bases of Politics (Garden City, N.Y. :
Doubleday Co., 1960), p. 139.
2
This sort of argument is developed by Hubert Guindon, "Social Unrest, Social
Class and Quebec's Bureaucratic Revolution, " Queens Quarterly, LXXI, No. 2, (Summer
Issue, 1964). The core of his thesis is that unrest has been caused by the emergence
of a new French Canadian middle class.
3
See, for instance, L. P. Edwards, The Natural History Of Revolution (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, l927), p. 36.
4
.
David F Aberle, "A Note On Relative Deprivation Theory As Applied To
Millenarian And Other Cult Movements, " ~ i l l e & i a l Dreams In Action, -ed. Sylvia L.
.
Thrupp (The Hague: Mouton & Co , l962), p. 213.
5
See, for instance, S. M. Lipset, "The Sources of the "Radical Right!' (l955), "
and "Three Decades of the Radical Right: Coughlinites, McCarthyites, and Birchers
(1962),It The Radical Right, ed. Daniel Bell ("Anchor Booksv'; New York: Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1964), pp. 307 -446. The earlier article of 1955 contains almost
no empirical evidence to support his contentions, while the 1962 presentation contains
more in the way of actual data. A number of apparently contradictory findings a r e
reported that lead Lipset to conclude that, "Efforts to account for adherence to
extremist political ideologies, and to McCarthyism in particular, have suggested that
such groups cannot be explained solely o r even primarily by an analysis of the values
and interests of their supporters" (p. 411).
6 David F . Aberle, The Peyote Religion Among The Navaho (Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Co., l966), p. 315.
 178

BIBLIOGRAPHY
I BOOKS

Aberle, David F . The Peyote Religion Among The Navaho. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Co. , 1966.

Allen, Fredrick Lewis. Since Yesterday 1929-1939. "Bantam Books" ;New York:
Harper and Row, 1965.

Arkright, Frank. The ABC of Technocracy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1933.

Armytage, W. H. G . Yesterday's Tomorrows. Toronto: University of Toronto P r e s s ,

1968.

Bendiner, Robert. Just Around The Corner. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., Inc.,
1968.

Berger, Peter. Invitation To Sociology. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.,
1963.

Bottomore, T. B. Social Criticism In North America. Toronto: CBC Publications,

1962.

.
Bowman, Sylvia E ed. and introd. Edward Bellamy Abroad. New York: Twayne
Publishers, 1962.

Bruyn, Severyn T. The Human Perspective In Sociology. Prentice-Hall Inc., 1966.

Dorfman, Joseph. Thorstein Veblen And His America. New York: Augustus M.
Kelley, Publisher, 1966.

Edwards, L. P. The Natural History Of Revolution. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1927.

Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York:

The F r e e Press, 1961.

Etzler, J . A . The Paradise Within The Reach Of All Men, Without Labour, By Powers
Of Nature And Machinery. An Address To All Intelligent Men. In Two Parts.
London: John Brooks, 1936.

Festinger, Leon, Riecken, Henry W., and Schackter, Stanley. When Prophecy Fails.
New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1964.

Galbraith, John Kenneth. The Great Crash 1929. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1954.

Grey, James H. The Winter Years. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1966.

Haber, Samuel. Efficiency And Uplift, Scientific Management in the Progressive Era
1890-1920. Chicago: The University of Chicago P r e s s , 1964.

Hobsbawm, E .J. Primitive Rebels. New York: W. W. Norton and Company Inc. ,
1959.

Jarvie, I. C. The Revolution In Anthropology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Ltd., 1964.
Jones, A. W. Life, Liberty and Property. New York: Octagon Books Inc. , 1964.

Lipset, S. M . Political Man; The Social Bases of Politics. Garden City, N. Y. :

Doubleday Co. , 1960.

Loeb, Harold. The Way It Was. New York: Criterion Books, Inc., 1959.

Manuel, Frank E. The Prophets Of Paris. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers
Inc., 1965.

Parrington, Vernon Jr. American Dreams, A Study Of American Utopias. 2d. ed.
New York: Russell and Russell Inc., 1964.

Porter, Henry A. Roosevelt and Technocracy. Los Angeles: Wetzel Publishing Co.
Ltd., 1932.

Raymond, Allen. What Is Technocracy? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.,
1933.

Saint-Simon, Henri De. Social Organization, The Science Of Man and Other Writings,
ed., trans., with introd., Felix Markham. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.

Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. The Politics of Upheaval 1935-1936. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin Co. , 1966.

Technocracy Study Course. New York: Technocracy Inc ., 1934.

Toch, Hans. The Social psycho lo,^ Of Social Movements. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-
Merrill Company, Inc. , 1965.

.
Veblen, Thorstein The Engineers and the Price System. "Harbinger Books" ;
New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1963.

Young, Walter D. Democracy And Discontent. Toronto: The Ryerson Press, 1969.

I1 PAMPHLETS, PERIODICALS, AND FUGITIVE LITERATURE

Aberle, David F . "A Note On Relative Deprivation Theory As Applied To Millenarian

And 'Other Cult Movements, Millennia1 Dreams In Action. ed. Sylvia L.
Thrupp, The Hague: Mouton and Co., (l962), pp. 209-214.

Adarnson, M., and Moore, R. I. ed., Technocracy: Some Questions Answered, New
.
York: Technocracy Inc , (1934).

Ardzrooni, Leon. "Veblen and Technocracy," Living Age, CCCXLIV, (March, 1934),
pp. 79-42.

Technocrats," -
Time, XXII, No. 36, (July 10, 1933).

Bell, Daniel. "Notes on the Post-Industrial Society," The Public Interest, VI,
(Winter, 1967), pp. 24-35.

Bliven, Bruce. llTechnocracy and Communism," The New Republic, LXXIIT,

(February, l933), pp. 315-317.

Blumer, Herbert. l'Social Movements, " Principles of Sociology, ed. Alfred McLung
.
Lee, pp. 199-220. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc , (1951).
Davies, J a m e s C. "Toward A Theory Of Revolution," American Sociological Review,
XXVII, (February, 1962), pp. 5-19.

"Enemy of the Bourgeoisie, " New Yorker, XXIII, (June, 1947), p. 18.

Gist, Noel P. " Culture Patterning In Secret Society Ceremonials, " Social F o r c e s ,
XW, No. 4, (May, 1963), pp. 497-505.

Guindon, Hubert. "Social Unrest, Social Class and Quebec's Bureaucratic Revolution,"
Queens Quarterly, L X I , No. 2 . (Summer Issue, 1964).

Hardyck, J a n e Allyn and Braden, Marcia. "Prophecy Fails Again, A Report Of A

Failure To Replicate," The Journal Of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXV,
No. 2 (1962), pp. 136-141.

Hughes, Everett C. lVSocialChange and Status Protest: An Essay on the Marginal Man,"
Phylon, X ( F i r s t Quarter, l949), pp. 58-65.

"Idea Ahead Of Time, Technocracy Digest, (May, l962), pp. 49-50,

Leacock, Stephen B. and Clay, Charles. "Canada, Social And Economic Conditions, "
Encyclopaedia Britannica, (l958), IV,p. 711.

.
Lipset, S. M "The Sources of the 'Radical Right1 (l955), and "Three Decades of the
Radical Right: Coughlinites, McCarthyites-Birchers (1962), " The Radical
Right, ed. Daniel Bell, "Anchor Books"; New York: Doubleday and Company,
Inc., (1964), pp. 307-446.

New York Times, 1932 -1936.

"No Platinum Handcuffs !I' Technocracy Digest, (Special Supplement, l949), pp. 14 -15.

Publishers Weekly, CXXII, (December 31, 1932), p. 2393.

"Question," Great Lakes Technocrat, IV, No. 9, (March-April, l948), p. 1 7 .

"Reform and Revolution," Monthly Review, m, No. 2, (June, l968), p. 1.

Roth, Herbert. "Bellamy Societies of Indonesia, South Africa, and New Zealand,"
.
Edward Bellamy Abroad, ed. Sylvia E Bowman, pp. 240-241. New York:
Twayne Publishers, (1962).

Scott, Howard. General Policy On Political Action. (mimeographed), New York:

.
Technocracy Inc , (March, 1935).

Scott, Howard. Science Versus Chaos, Chicago: Technocracy Inc., (1934).

Soule George. "Technocracy, Good Medicine o r a Bedtime S t ~ r y ? ~The

' New
Republic, LXXIII, (December 28, l932), pp. 178-180.

Talmon, Yonina. "Pursuit of the Millennium: The Relation Between Religious and
Social Change, " Archives Europeenes de Sociologie, 111, No. 1, (1962),
pp. 125-148.

Technodemocracy . The New Analyst (mimeographed), IV, No. 9, Chicago: (1954).

Technocracy Digest, 1934-1969.

Technocracy Inc. , Canadian Section News, (mimeographed), Vancouver, (1946).

Technocracy Inc., Continental Committee, (mimeographed), New York, July (1934).

Technocracy Inc. , General Mailings, (mimeographed), New York, (1939-1947).

Technocracy Inc., Our Country, Right Or Wrong, New York, (1946).

.
Technocracy Inc , Some Differences Between Technocracy And Other Groups,
(mimeographed), New York: (August, 1934).

Technocracy Inc., Technews, (mimeographed), Vancouver, (1947 -1948).

Technocracy Inc., Total Conscription! Your Questions Answered, New York:

.
Technocracy Inc , (October, 1942) .
"Technocracy Rears Its Head Again," The Publishers' Weekly, CXLI, (April 25, 1942),
p. 1578.

''Technology Smashes The P r i c e System," Harpers Magazine, CLXVI, (January, 1933),

pp. 129-142.

"The Hotel P i e r r e Address, " The Northwest Technocrat, XVIII, No. 175, (April, 1954).

"The Social Objectives Of Technocracy," The New Republic, LXXV, (May 17, 1933),
p. 20.

The Technocrat, 1937-1969.

The Vancouver Sun, 1932-1933.

The Vancouver Sun, Special Edition, (December 3, 1932).

"The William Knight Letter, " Technocracy Digest, (December, l948), pp. 6-11.

''Toward a New System, " The Nation, CXXXV, (September 7, l932), p. 205.

Trends, Vancouver: Canadians F o r Victory Committee.

.
Truesdell, Leon E "Population And Social Conditions, l1 Encyclopaedia Britannica,
(1958), XXII, p. 732.

Vander Zanden, J a m e s W. "The Klan Revival," American Journal Of Sociology, LXV,

(March, 1960), pp. 456-462.

Webbink, Paul. "Unemployment in the United States, 1930-1940, I' The Great
.
Depression, ed. D. A. Shannon, Englewood Cliffs, N. J : Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
(1960), pp. 6-7.

"We Told You Way Back Then," Technocracy Digest, (May, 1957), pp. 17-23.

Wilson, Bryan. "Millennialism In Comparative Perspective," Comparative Studies In

Society And History, X, I, (October, 1963), pp. 93-114.

Zald, Mayer N. and Denton, Patricia. "From Evangelism to General Service: The
Transformation of the YMCA, l1 Administrative Science Quarterly, VIII,
(June, 1965), pp. 214-234.
Ill UNPUBLISHED MAT ERlAL

.
Benson, Norman F l'The Origins And Impact Of An American Radicalism; A History
.
Of Technocracy, Inc ," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of
Education, Ball State University, 1965.

Elsner, Henry Jr. "Messianic Scientism: Technocracy, 1919-1960, " Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, 1963.

Faulkner, Joseph Kaye. "The Emergence of Technocracy a s a Social Reform Move-

ment, " Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Economics, University
of Utah, 1965.

Loeb, Harold. "Technocracy: A Forgotten Episode That Changed The World,"

Unpublished m s .
 APPENDIX 1

METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX

This study of the Technocracy movement started out, as I imagine have many

others, with quite different concerns from those that eventually came to dominate it.

Originally I had focussed a general interest in social movements on a specific concern

with those usually described a s utopian. My previous study of movements had been

limited to readings on the subject, and a desire to expand my then extremely limited

participant observation experience, and hence to avoid the prospect of a thesis based

solely on library research, dictated that an existent and available movement be

selected. Technocracy was geographically practical and also boasted a highly utopian

vision of the desired future state of society. As the study developed, however, this

utopian element became less and less my primary interest, as matters of history,

processes, conflicts, and internal factions began to seem more significant.

While the first-hand observation had obvious methodological advantages and

saved me from spending all of my time in the library, it was necessary also to

utilize extensively a large body of secondary sources dealing with the history of the

movement. The participant observation, however, allowed me to understand this

secondary data more adequately than would otherwise have been the case. As a

result, while the actual data accumulated in the observation occupy a smaller propor-

tion of the final paper, it was this experience that was most important in determining

interpretations.

The references and footnotes throughout the text make it quite clear that the

manner of accumulating data on Technocracy was eclectic, and while the problems of

interpretation of secondary sources a r e themselves worth discussion, I will primarily

be concerned here with aspects of participant observation. The reason f o r this i s two-

fold. In the f i r s t place, the account of the experience of attempting to act a s a partici-

pant observer in Technocracy is in itself often instructive a s to the nature of the move-

ment, and in the second place, while there is a relatively extensive literature on
participant observation,' there is little that is directed specifically toward the study

of movements. In part, this i s a reflection of the fact that a large proportion of the

writing on movements has relied more on secondary sources than on direct observa-

tion. 2 In any event, although the following discussion i s concerned primarily with

this specific movement, it i s conceivable that some of the situations have a more

general relevance and hence will be of some value to others attempting such a project.

An initial decision that had to be made prior to contacting the organization was

whether I was to approach it a s a potential recruit o r a s a researcher; in other words,

whether o r not to be open about my objectives. There a r e both ethical and methodo-

logical problems involved in this dilemma, and in some circumstances the two over-

lap. It i s clear that if one's identity a s a researcher is known, relationships will be

affected and perhaps inhibited, certain areas of information will be denied, and in

some circumstances, no access to the group will be possible. On the other hand, to

participate a s a novice member of Technocracy is to limit oneself to the movement's

definition of the appropriate range of behaviour f o r novices. An extensive study of

the history of the movement, through examination of movement literature and docu-

ments, would be unique f o r a novice member but perhaps acceptable. Sustained

inquisitiveness about other members would, however, seem quite unusual and prob-

ably unacceptable. In more general terms, the 'secret1 observer must act within the

limits of his assumed role, which in Technocracy would be a relatively limited range.

In part, this is a consequence of the secrecy (both internal and external) and alienation

of the movement ("We regard ourselves a s within the enemy territory of the Price

stern^'^). Perhaps a s important is the fact that Technocracy is a small group of

primarily long-term members, wherein new recruits a r e a rarity and hence subject

to more comment and scrutiny than might be the case in a larger and growing move-
ment. It was not primarily these methodological considerations that prompted the

decision to define myself openly a s a student of the movement, as in fact I could only
really be aware of some of them after the fact. A combination of methodological and

ethical considerations was the decisive factor. The ethics of studying people with
neither their knowledge nor their consent are, at least, ambiguous; I do not intend to

develop a definitive argument on the subject here. Sufficient to say that I have con-

siderable reservations about such 'secret' observation. Given such doubts, I antici-

pated, and subsequently became further convinced, that unless I were fully confident

of the legitimacy of my behaviour, my participation and ability to relate with any

degree of warmth and openness would be continually inhibited, in all probability to the

point of becoming immobilized. Consequently, when I attended my f i r s t public lecture

in October of 1967, I identified myself initially a s a graduate student considering

writing a thesis on the movement; the response to this was generally more restrained

than exuberant. My position for the first two months was precarious. Since public

lectures a r e only monthly events, it was necessary both to find out about other activi-

ties and to obtain invitations to participate in them. This was complicated by the fact

that, while Technocrats a r e understandably not particularly interested in being

studied,' they a r e also not overly concerned with recruiting new members. As a

result, members did not go out of their way to maintain my continued participation,

o r even to inform me of upcoming activities. Early in the third month, however, a

weekly study course was started, and I was accepted a s a participant in this. I am

inclined to think that whatever level of acceptance I eventually managed to obtain was

in large part due to my regular and continued participation in this course. On the one

hand it allowed me to be around on a regular basis and so to build more extensive

relationships; and on the other, it was treated by the members as a kind of test of

interest. I was continually informed that the only way really to understand Techno-

cracy was diligent attention to the study course, and several members, I found out

subsequently, checked the course attendance sheets to see if I was attending.

In these early stages of my observations, a situation developed that may well

have wider relevance than this particular study. One of the Technocrats who was a

frequent participant in activities, though not a member of any of the boards o r

committees, made himself particularly helpful and informative to me. As my posi-

tion was still extremely tentative and problematic and my relationships with other
participants still rather restrained, I found myself increasingly tending to use this

member a s an informant and mentor. I failed to anticipate the subsequent limitations

of this situation. As it developed, I became defined by my mentor a s his 'property1,

this taking the form of his continually manipulating situations s o that he was my sole

pipeline to information, and an ever present, although frequently unwanted, 'inter-

preter' in my conversations with other Technocrats. The interpretation was not

wholly advantageous, as he consistently and usually incorrectly 'interpreted' to other

Technocrats what it was that I wanted to know. Since quite often I was simply trying

to build relationships and to open broad areas of discussions, these interpretations

often excessively limited the subject matter, as well a s continually defining me a s a

researcher rather than a s a participant. In addition, both he and other Technocrats

(in part, because of his interpretations) continued to see my research a s solely a

matter of understanding the scope and nature of the Technocratic belief system; con-

sequently my asking similar questions of different people was to them, puzzling, and

perhaps in some circumstances a challenge to the veracity of those who had previously

answered a particular question.

This image of my purpose a s primarily an examination and evaluation of Tech-

nocratic ideology brings us to another area that may have relevance to other studies

of movements. In order to escape the limitations of this definition of my objectives I

began to s t r e s s my concern with the history of the movement, thinking that this might

provide a more familar reference point for members than llsociology" seemed to do.

This did not take into account a more important consideration, however, a s I was now
even more frequently confronted about my evaluation of Technocratic beliefs. I see

this now a s primarily a result of the movement's relatively unambiguous definitions

of insiders and outsiders. The movement provides a number of explanations of

outside critics and those simply not interested in the movement. They a r e regarded

either a s conditioned to apathy, o r as simply not part of the elite who a r e competent
to understand the analysis, o r both. I, however, was clearly neither uninterested nor

incompetent, but neither was I a "believer", and there was no way in which my continu-
ally marginal role could be accommodated.

It seems to me now that the nature of social movements inevitably produces

limitations of this kind f o r the researcher, unless he can, with integrity, accept full

membership, and the movement can see his continued research a s a potentially posi-

tive contribution. Neither of these conditions prevailed in my relationship to Techno-

cracy, and hence my status remained marginal.

An interesting example in this regard occurred in the later stages of the study

and demonstrates, I think, the continuing contrast between my own and the members'

perspectives. In a discussion about the state of my research on the movement, a

member asked me if I ever discussed Technocracy with my students at the university.

I interpreted this a s a concern with privacy of communication and replied (truthfully)

that I did not. I then elaborated in a , perhaps, excessively moralistic way the virtues

of scientific integrity, which seemed to be of little interest to anyone but myself.

From the conversation that followed it became clear that the question had really been:

Had I praised, o r conversely, criticized the movement to my students?

Another factor is important in relation to the question of the Technocrats1

definition of my study a s concerned with ideological 'correctness'. In growing and/or

more active movements a large proportion of discussion revolves around debates on

appropriate tactics and goals, structure and procedures. Such debates a r e almost

totally non-existent in Technocracy today, with the very occasional exception of short-

lived attempts to suggest more active stances on particular issues. The only remain-

ing question of importance, then, becomes: Is Technocracy correct in its long-term

analysis and predictions? Despite the lack of open debate on the question among

members, they are, I think, persistently conscious of it. This becomes evident in

part in the kinds of statements made by the leadership in public lectures and Current
Events classes. The theme of one recent lecture for instance, Not Whether, But When,

is relatively constant, and informal conversations frequently touch on the question,

commonly phrased, "Do you really think that the Technate will come in our lifetime?"

The question i s , however, pursued tentatively and cautiously, then hastily dropped
with an affirmative answer.

It seems, therefore, that their definition of my objectives was, at least in part,

a projection of members' basic concerns.

It should be clear by now that in terms of the usual goals of participant obsewa-

tion, this aspect of the research was not completely satisfactory. From the Technocrats'

point of view I remained an outsider, and while rapport was obviously better in the

later stages, it never approached the desired level. This is a reflection clearly both

on personal field work skills and on the nature of the movement. Even this unsatis-

factory observation period, however, raised questions and suggested areas of signi-

ficance that could not have arisen had the research been limited to various secondary

sources. Other methods (for instance, content analysis, questionnaires, and inter-

views) may be useful to test specific hypotheses, o r to trace the history and develop-

ment of variants of ideology. If the goal is to study a movement in a holistic manner,

and to avoid mechanistic and one-dimensional interpretations, however, some form

of direct observation seems essential.

 NOTES
1
The most complete text available, solely on the subject of Participant
Observation is: Severyn T. Bruyn, The Human Perspective In Sociology (Prentice-
Hall Inc. , 1966).
2
We would argue that this reliance on such sources i s in part responsible for
the sometimes excessive focus on official ideology and formal structure, to the
detriment of a sensitivity to the informal structure and the movement's meaning to
members. In addition, this confidence in data not supplemented by various forms of
direct observation accounts in part for the consistently one-dimensional image of
participants, not uncommon to the literature.
3
This quotation is from a long-time Technocracy leader.
4
Other studies that have been done on the movement have not always been overly
complimentary and have been perceived by the members a s attacks on the movement.
 190

APPENDIX 2

TECHNOCRACY INC. SUGGESTION FORM

12349 - 1
SUGGESTION BLANK

DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME - AND SOMEONE ELSE'S TIME - SAYING IT. PUT
IT IN WRITING!

FACTS OBSERVED:

ANALYSIS: (The problem stated)

SYNTHESIS: (Your s u p e s t i o n )

Signed:

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS:

Date

DIRECTED B Y EXECUTIVE TO:

WRITTEN REPLY MUST BE MADE TO EVERY SUGGESTION WITHIN ONE

MONTH B Y THE PERSON OR COMMITTEE TO WHOM A SUGGESTION IS DIRECTED.