July 1980 RAIN Page 5 ple can, by their use, unplug themselves from commodity circuits. This bias i:·: i;~rly ii·l~strated by the above-mentioned lacunae i_n They are reference books on technology that help people to become the reference section of modern libraries. But how explain the more active rather than more consumptive. I take these reference empty shelves? Librarians always find m·oney for reference books, works as evidence that research on technical progress is nb longer no matter how odd the subject. And lack of money could not exexclusively at the service of what Karl Polanyi called the dis- plain a phenomenon equally true of the Bodleian, the MIT System, embedded sphere of formal economic growth. People seeking to the U.S. Department of Energy and the Technische Univer~itat in '. heighten their satisfactions in ways that reduce consumption have Berlin. None of these major sources could provide me with any eviincreased in number and maturity. They are the ones who in ten dence of a two-volume annotated bibliography of small-scale windyears have found it necessary to print 450 bibliographies, abstract- mills, published two years earlier, the author a retired director of a ing services, journals, review media, reports on meetings and direc- national laboratory. It would be silly to ascribe this gap to some tories. A population that needs 450 reference books to find out what kind of conspiracy among librarians. From all my experienc·e with others are reading, writing and doing can be c~lled marginal no academics, librarians appear the least prejudiced against Don 1 longer. • Quixote. . . . 1 This ne~ kind ~f research i~ highly decentralized: It is meagerly Quite clearly , 1 technical progress can develop in on~ of two direcfinanced, does nothing for the producer of new commodities, but tions: it can evolve as part of a society whose values are centered on does provide directions for the group engaged in unpaid activities survival in small group subsistence, or of a society oriented towards and self-help. I have looked into most of these reference books. The large-seal~ production for people inade dependent on commodities. authors, besides knowing the gray literature in their own field (of- The first kind of society and progress will occur where the manual . ten self-published in small numbers for free distribution or volun- work of all the society's members is held in high esteem. The sectary contributions), have practical experience. In addition, the~e ond occurs as the inevitable outcome of a social structure where the authors are well acquainted with the standard indices, journals and status and self-esteem of a man are a function of how little he has to library resources that are used in ordinary ~cience and economics, use his hands; that is, of how many slaves, serfs, women or mainsofar as these touch on their fields. Some as gate-crashers, some • chines do his work. as laureates, many of the riew authors feel quite comfortable in the. In the last few centuries·the elite disdain for physical labor ~as Halls of Academies which ignore their work. Not surprisingly, such slowly but inexorably rationalized into elite responsibility-for the , is not true for their counterparts~the conventional information • development and management of so-called productive forces. • specialists whose works now fill our public.and scientific libraries. I. Progress was identified with the replacement of pe~ple's subsistence have checked a dozenfarge collectio_ns, and rarely found more than activities by goods an4 services which could be mass produced. And a very few of the reference books that I speak about in such places. this kind of progress has occurred. When asked and pressed, the librarians offered one of three ex- li cuses: they were unaware of the existence of these new kinds ~f here are, however, significant events and developments, like. references, unable to obtain them since they were not available counterfoil research, which make me believe that the tradjtion of through the ordinary trade channels, and finally, that they were small-scale subsistence.may now come to the fore as an adequate uncertain under what heading to classify them. Under creative countervailing force replacing the industrial system's hegemonywriting? Under.anarchy or political science? Under hobby or tech- that technology by people may soon be understood as the necessary • nique? U11der deviance or sociology? Or on the shelves of anat- and e_qually important complement to technology for people.• omy-where Dewey places women's studies? From these ~xperiences, I reached cert~in c~n~lusion~ about the . status of the "radical" wing of counterfoil research. FirS't,·it is distinct from the corporate enterprise that we call R & D. It is different in objective, method and recruitment. Its objective is not productivity but the substitution of subsistence activities for commoditydependence ..Its method is validation by reference to the satisfaction of a concrete, small group ra_ther than operational verific~tion. And its re·cruits-no inatter how much or how little previous academic qualification they poss~ss~are usually autodidacts in the chosen field of research. Second, counterfoil research on use-value oriented techniqu,es is a radically new form of technology I but not a new form of science. It draws·from ordinary science the data that it then applies within a revolutionary paradigm about the pu.rpose of technique. R &,D improves the efficiency of tools that produce standardized goods and services, and increases thereby the universal need for both. Counterfoil research improves ihose tools and processes that enable people to obtain more satisfaction from their actual use than they could ever derive from _the substitution of such actions by consumer goods. Therefore, counterfoil research thrives best when it is conducted by people who themselves enjoy li~ing an independent and simple life validated by a small, consensual group. And such research is always hampered and usually corrupted when the •technical expert, with his clinical perspective, succeeds in foisting his services on it. The third conclusion I reached is that this new kind of research, which substitutes unpaid activities for the consumption of commodities, is complementary to the R & D which seeks the development of goods an_d services which can be produced for people. For the time being, however, this distracting complementarity is understood from one side only. • For over a decade Ivan Illich has written cogent and provocative essays on the industrial mode of production and the modernization of poverty, assailing an age that creates false needs at the expense.,· of real problems and creates professional elites to perpetuate those needs. Austrian born, since 19601llich has made his home in Cuernavaca, Mexico. He is the author of Celebration of Awareness (1969), Deschooling Society (1971), Tools for Conviviality (1973), Energy and Equity(1974), and Meclical Nemesis(1976J. Tools for • Conviviality is__ a semin.al work in thr literature of appropriate technology. The article printed here is slightly abridged from 'its original form. Those interested in reading more ofIllich' s writings would do well to get hold.of Toward a History of Needs (1978, 145 pp. , $7.95 from: Pantheon Books, 201 East 50th Street, New York, NY 10022). This collection contains three illuminating essays on development, education, and medicine, and a previously unpublished essay called "Useful Unemployment and Its Professional Enemies." Also included is Illich'~ famous "Energy and Equity." -MR ~ --'"). '?. /7 . ... ~:✓ • -- '$7 ·:Y . ,\\\\\\ .... '
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz