*As documented in some detail in my book, The Age of Discontinuity (London: Heinemann, 1969).
*On this New Pluralism, see The Age of Discontinuity, especially Part Three: “A Society of Organizations.”
*Anthony Jay: Management and Machiavelli (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1967).
†Published in the United Kingdom as Big Business.
*This, of course, also underlies the rapid return to profit and profitability as yardsticks and determinants of allocation decisions in the developed communist countries, that is, Russia and the European satellites.
*S. B. Hamilton only expresses the prevailing view of technologists when he says (in Singer’s History of Technology, IV, 469) in respect to the architects of the Gothic cathedral and their patrons that there is “nothing to suggest that either party was driven or pursued by any theory as to what would be beautiful.” Yet we have overwhelming and easily accessible evidence to the contrary; both architect and patron were not just “driven.” they were actually obsessed by rigorously mathematical theories of structure and beauty. See, for instance, Sedlmayr, Die Entstehung der Kathedrale (Zürich, 1950); von Simson, The Gothic Cathedral (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956); and especially the direct testimony of one of the greatest of the cathedral designers, Abbot Suger of St.-Denis, in Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and its Art Treasures, ed. Erwin Panofsky (Princeton, 1946).
* For documentation, see The Age of Discontinuity.
* For a description, see The Age of Discontinuity, pp. 119–120.
*See on this Sir P. B. Medawar, the British biologist, in “Old Age and Natural Death” in his The Uniqueness of the Individual (London: Methuen, 1957).
*Among the studies ought to be mentioned the work of the late Elton Mayo, first in Australia and then at Harvard, especially his two slim books: The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization (2nd edn., Boston, 1946) and The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization (Boston, 1945); the studies of the French sociologist Georges Friedmann, especially his Industrial Society (Glencoe: Free Press, 1964); the work carried on at Yale by Charles R. Walker and his group, especially the book by him and Robert H. Guest: The Man on the Assembly Line (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952). I understand that studies of the organization of work are also being carried out at the Polish Academy of Science, but I have not been able to obtain any of the results.
*O. G. von Simson, The Gothic Cathedral (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956).
*The word is here used as in Kenneth Boulding’s “General Systems Theory—The Skeleton of Science.” Management Science, vol. 2, No. 3 (April 1956), p. 197, and in the publications of the Society for General Systems Research.
*See the brilliant though one-sided book by Karl A. Wittvogel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power (New Haven, Conn., 1957).
*“Long-range planning” is not a term I like or would have picked myself. It is a misnomer—as are so many of our terms in economics and management, such as “capitalism,” “automation,” “operational research,” “industrial engineering,” or “depreciation.” But it is too late to do anything about the term; it has become common usage.
*For discussion, see my book, The Landmarks of Tomorrow (London: Heinemann, 1959).
*For a discussion of this “new organization,” see again my Landmarks of Tomorrow.
*I would like to say here that I do not believe that the world is divided into “managers” and “management scientists.” One man may well be both. Certainly, management scientists must understand the work and job of the manager, and vice versa. But conceptually and as a kind of work the two are distinct.
*E. Rosen, “The Invention of Eyeglasses,” Journal for the History of Medicine, vol. 11 (1956), pp. 13–46, 183–218.
†It was among the great Boerhaave’s many “firsts” to have taught the first course in ophthalmology and to examine actual eyes—in 1708 in Leyden. Newton’s Optics was the acknowledged inspiration. (See George Sarton, “The History of Medicine versus the History of Art,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, vol. 10 (1941), pp. 123–35.)
*Bleeding actually reached a peak in the 1820s, when it was touted as the universal remedy by no less an authority than Broussais, the most famous professor at the Paris Academy of Medicine. According to Henry E. Sigrist (Great Doctors; London: Allen and Unwin, 1933), it became so popular that in the one year, 1827, 33 million leeches were imported into France.
*There was, to be sure, one famous dissent, one important and highly effective approach to science as a means to doing and as a foundation for technology. Its greatest spokesman was St. Bonaventura, the thirteenth-century antiphonist to St. Thomas Aquinas (see especially St. Bonaventura’s Reduction of all Arts to Theology). A hundred years earlier the dissenters actually dominated in the twelfth-century Platonism of the theologian–technologist schools of St. Victoire and Chartres, builders alike of mysticism and of the great cathedrals. On this see Charles Homer Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927); Otto von Simson, The Gothic Cathedral (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956); and Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.- Denis and its Art Treasures, edited by Erwin Panofsky (Princeton, 1946).
*J. Carswell, The South Sea Bubble (London: Cresset Press, 1960).
*G. E. Fussell, The Farmer’s Tools, 1500–1900 (London, 1952); A. J. Bourde, The Infl uence of England on the French Agronomes (Cambridge, 1953); A. Demolon, L’Évolution Scientifique et l’ Agriculture Fran ç aise (Paris, 1946); R. Krzymowski; Geschichte der deutschen Landwirtschaft (Stuttgart, 1939).
†A. P. Usher, History of Mechanical Inventions (Rev. Ed., Cambridge, Mass., 1954); also the same author’s “Machines & Mechanisms” in Vol. III of Singer, et al., A History of Technology (Oxford, 1957); J. W. Roe, English and American Tool Builders (London, 1916); K. R. Gilbreth, “Machine Tools,” in History of Technology, Vol. IV (Oxford, 1958); on early technical education see: Franz Schnabel, Die Anfaenge des Technischen Hoch-schulwesens (Freiburg, 1925).
*The standard biography of van Swieten is W. Mueller, Gerhard van Swieten (Vienna, 1883); on the organized resistance of academic medicine to the scientific approach, see G. Strakosch-Grassmann, Geschichte des oesterreichischen Unterrichtswesens (Vienna, 1905).
†This is the name commonly used for the work. Its actual title was De Sedibus et causis morborum per anatomen indigatis; the first English translation appeared in 1769 under the title, The Seats and Causes of Diseases Investigated by Anatomy.
*This is brought out most clearly in William Lockwood, The Economic Development of Japan, 1868–1938 (Princeton: University Press, 1954).
*Franz Schnabel, Deutsche Geschichte im 19. Jahrhundert (4 vols., Freiburg i.B., 1929–1937); the discussion of technology and medicine is found chiefly in Vol. III.
*See Jay W. Forrester, “Industrial Dynamics: A Major Breakthrough for Decision Makers,” Harvard Business Review, July–August 1958, p. 37.
*See Kenneth E. Boulding, “General Systems Theory,” Management Science, April 1956, p. 197.
*For a statement of the modern position, see Howard Eves and Carroll V. Newsom, An Introduction to Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics (New York: Holt Rinehart, 1958), pp. 29–30.