west. Karl Marx created the myth of the working class. In the early days of the appropriate technology movement, we publicized efforts that were still half-formed. Any movement that seeks publicity, or funding, exaggerates its successes. ' • In the early,days of the appropriate technology movement, wepublicized efforts that were still half-formed. But it is now time that those with the most experience in this movement seriously analyze its strengths and limitations. But it is now time that those with the most experience in this movement seriously analyze its strengths and limitations. Karl Hess does us all a disservice by not doing this. Rather, he continues to rewrite history to conform to his dreams. In Karl's book, Community Technology as an organization that developed tools and programs to make Adams Morgan self-reliant was a success; the neighborhood was at fault. The fact of the matter is that Community Technology was a·small group of people who pursued their favorite technologies. It was less community technology than personalist technology. This is not meant to demean the effort. It was an exciting time of experimentation. But if Karl wants to use it as a model of neighborhood technology, it must be examined in a different light.... Lack of Context The strength of the appropriate technology movement-the focus on small communities-can also be its major fading. It presumes reconstruction can take place through internal revitalization, ignoring the larger world. "The reality is that when most people want something to change, it will change," writes Karl Hess, and he means this in a neighborhood context. For him, the basic ingredients of social change are a ·committed neighborhood, adequate access to tools and ,know-how, open meetings, and a small ai;nount of capital. However, although participation and knowledge may be necessary condi: tions, they are not sufficient. . . . . One cannot discuss the prospects of a neighborhood without explaining the social forces that intersect and define its context. Adams Morgan in 1974 was a neighborhood in the middle of a colony. The colony was gaining a measure of selfdetermination and was fighting for more. So was the neigh- . borhood. By ignoring this larger context, Adams Morgan in Karl Hess's book appears to stand outside of history. When Karl writes of Community Technology as an organization, he makes it seem as if there were a dormant neighborhood which became activated by people like himself, only to slip back into passivity after a short energetic spurt. Karl ignores the rich history of activism in Adams Morgan, both before his arrival, and after his departure. In the 1960s, the neighborhood fought long and hard against an urban renewal program that would have destroyed major sections of it. It struggled for 14 years to get the city to purchase a four.-acre park in the middle of the neighborhood. Personal Politics One major reason the community never related closely to the activities of Community Technology was that the group never addressed itself to what the community perceived to be its primary concern: housing. Solar collectors, trout farms, community gardens, even credit unions, or self-managed businesses, mean little until one controls the land.... October 1979 RAIN Page 15 Power and Arrogance Which brings us directly to the issue of power. Karl ignores, avoids or criticizes those who direct their attention to power. His pollyannish attitudes toward social change has its counterpart-arrogance. In this book the arrogance is directed at blacks: The people who seemed to ta~k about and do the least in support of our group's prop.osals were black. . . . Blacks think black, as they continually say. So black has come to mean poor and oppressed. Black demands have come to mean black reparations; to be given something rather than seeking the chance to do something, Such a statement, directed ar 75 percent of Washington, D.C., and 60 percent of his own community, screams for elaboration. Karl chides blacks in D.C. for striving for power instead of production. He fails to mention that many people in D.C., blacks as well as whites, chided him for exactly the oppo_site: ignoring power and concentrating on what they perceived as interesting backyard hobbies and inventions. 1here are many blacks who view the neighborhood movement with suspicion. They see it, and the concomitant move to metropolitan authorities, as not coincidentally arising just as blacks were becoming the major political force in cenWe need to reach'out, to build coalitions with labor unions, city governments, professional organizations, state legislatures, machine tool shops. It's only when the movement can acknowledge the larger context of this revival of small-scale living that it can have a substantial, permanent impact on our way of life. --- - ~----- ··-- ·-- · ··- - - ··--- --- - tral cities. At the same time, blacks were winning mayoral and city council elections, the twin demand for neighborhood power and metropolitan government undercut the power of the city. In the final analysis, it is the conscious avoidance of power and institution building which dooms Karl's philosophy to failure. It is not a coincidence that in Community Technology there is no mention of small business development and no discussion of city political authority. Institutionalization, representative government and political power arc not goals to be achieved. They are evils to be avoided. Yet, by not addressing the needs of his community, and refusing to deal with the larger forces impinging on the security of his neighbors, Karl is left with little more to do than to criticize. The strength of the community technology movement is that it can harness our vast scientific and engir.ecring expertise in moving toward small systems. Its strength lies in the way it encourages average citizens to begin transforming themselves and their communities into places of production. But if it stops there, it will degenerate into a cyn~cal, isolated voice, criticizing those who don't drop everything to raise fish in the basement. We need to reach out, to build coalitions with labor unions, city governments, professional organizations, state legislatures, machine tool shops. It is only when the movement can link scientific knowledge to political power, only when it can acknowledge the larger context of this revival of small-scale living, that,it can have a substantial, permanent impact on our way of life. ■
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz