Lewis Mumford

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Lewis Mumford was born on the 19th of October 1895 in Flushing, Queens, and spent the next nine decades becoming one of the most wide-ranging thinkers America ever produced. He never finished a college degree. Tuberculosis interrupted his studies, the Navy claimed him briefly during World War I, and then New York's literary world absorbed him entirely. He would go on to write architectural criticism for The New Yorker for more than thirty years, win the National Book Award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the National Medal of Arts, and be knighted as an honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire. The questions he spent his life asking were not comfortable ones: What does a city do to the people living inside it? Does technology serve humanity, or has humanity begun to serve technology? And what would it actually look like to build a world scaled to the human body rather than to the machine? Those questions led him from utopian literature to urban planning to a sweeping philosophy he called organic humanism, and eventually to a pair of landmark volumes called The Myth of the Machine. His friend and contemporary Frank Lloyd Wright was reshaping American architecture while Mumford was reshaping how Americans thought about their cities and their tools. The two threads were inseparable. What follows is the story of how one self-educated writer from Queens built a philosophy that still travels.

• 2. The Self-Made Scholar

  ›

  Stuyvesant High School, class of 1912, was where Mumford's formal education reached its most conventional peak. He enrolled at the City College of New York and The New School for Social Research, but tuberculosis cut that short, and he left without a degree. The illness may have redirected him. He joined the Navy in 1918, served as a radio electrician, and was discharged in 1919. Within the year he had become associate editor of The Dial, one of the most influential modernist literary journals of the era. That position placed him at the center of early-twentieth-century American letters at precisely the moment when writers and critics were trying to define what American culture actually was.

  His first book, The Story of Utopias, appeared in 1922 and explored the long history of visions of a better world. Four years later, in The Golden Day, he made a bold argument: that the most important American literary tradition was mid-nineteenth-century, built from Herman Melville, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Walt Whitman. He argued those writers expressed an antebellum culture that the Civil War and industrialization had destroyed. Herman Melville followed in 1929, combining biography with literary interpretation, and it became a significant contribution to the broader revival of critical interest in Melville's work.

  The Scottish theorist Sir Patrick Geddes shaped Mumford's thinking about cities and civilization from an early stage. Mumford also worked closely with Victor Branford, a British sociologist and Geddes associate. Friendships with Clarence Stein, Frederic Osborn, and Edmund N. Bacon connected him to the world of actual planning practice. The psychologist Henry Murray became a close correspondent from 1928 onward, and the two exchanged letters well into the 1960s on subjects ranging from Herman Melville to the nature of the self.

• 3. The City as a Living Body

  ›

  The City in History, published in 1961, won the National Book Award the following year, and it remains the work most people associate with Mumford. His argument was architectural and moral at once: the structure of modern cities, he contended, bore direct responsibility for many of the social problems visible across Western society. His early architectural criticism, written for The New Yorker across more than three decades, had already helped bring public recognition to Henry Hobson Richardson, Louis Sullivan, and Frank Lloyd Wright. The city book was where all those years of observation crystallized into a single sustained argument.

  For Mumford, the medieval city was the model. It had what he called an organic relationship between people and their living spaces, a quality the modern city had traded away in its rush toward the scale of the Roman megalopolis. He believed the Roman city ended in collapse precisely because of that unrestrained expansion, and he was direct about the implication: if the modern city continued in the same direction, it would meet the same fate.

  Suburbia drew particular criticism. He described the suburb as "an asylum for the preservation of illusion," a place where domesticity could thrive while remaining oblivious to what he called "the pervasive regimentation beyond." He wrote that it was "not merely a child-centered environment; it was based on a childish view of the world, in which reality was sacrificed to the pleasure principle." Mumford also identified fears that rarely appear in planning literature: distrust of the finance industry, anxiety about political structures, and worry that local community culture was not being fostered. He put the city's relationship to the natural environment and to what he called "the spiritual values of human community" above its physical design or its economic functions. His 1940 book Faith for Living extended this concern into religion, arguing that separating spiritual life from practical life was a curse that fell on both sides of existence equally.

• 4. Technics, Not Technology

  ›

  Technics and Civilization appeared in 1934, and with it Mumford introduced a word he would use deliberately for the rest of his career. He chose "technics" over "technology" because the Greek root tekhne covers not only technology but also art, skill, and dexterity. For Mumford, technics meant the full interplay between social life and technical innovation, encompassing a society's "wishes, habits, ideas, goals" alongside its "industrial processes." He quoted his own opening passage to make the point: "other civilizations reached a high degree of technical proficiency without, apparently, being profoundly influenced by the methods and aims of technics."

  The same book introduced his division of civilization into three distinct epochs, an idea he developed from Patrick Geddes: the Eotechnic, corresponding to the Middle Ages; the Paleotechnic, the period of the Industrial Revolution; and the Neotechnic, the era that followed. Each epoch carried its own characteristic relationship between tools and society, and the distinctions mattered because Mumford believed that relationship could either support or undermine human life.

  Within the same framework he drew a line between what he called polytechnic and monotechnic approaches. Polytechnics enlisted many different modes of technology in a complex arrangement aimed at solving human problems. Monotechnics pursued technology for its own sake, moving along its own trajectory regardless of what it did to people. He found American transportation networks a clear example of monotechnics: roads built for automobiles consumed so much space and posed such danger that they became obstacles for walking, cycling, and public transit. He described the thousands killed and injured each year in automobile accidents as a kind of ritual sacrifice made in the name of highway dependence.

  One of his most striking arguments concerned the mechanical clock. While most historical accounts placed the steam engine at the center of the Industrial Revolution, Mumford argued the clock deserved that position. He wrote: "The clock, not the steam-engine, is the key-machine of the modern industrial age.... The clock... is a piece of power-machinery whose 'product' is seconds and minutes." The clock had been developed by monks in the Middle Ages and then adopted by the rest of society, and in Mumford's reading it was the clock that first imposed mechanical regularity on human life, making everything that followed possible.

• 5. Megatechnics and the Machine Myth

  ›

  By 1970, when Mumford published The Pentagon of Power as the second volume of The Myth of the Machine, his earlier optimism about electricity and mass communication had given way to a sustained critique of what he called megatechnics. He defined it as the modern tendency to pursue constant, unrestricted expansion, production, and replacement, and he argued that these goals actively worked against technical perfection, durability, social efficiency, and human satisfaction.

  He was specific about the mechanisms. Consumer credit, installment buying, defective designs, planned obsolescence, and frequent cosmetic changes all served megatechnics by preventing products from reaching what he called "a plateau of efficient design." He used his own refrigerator as evidence, reporting that it had run for nineteen years with only a single minor repair. He argued that if what he called "biotechnic criteria" governed design rather than the priorities of market analysts and fashion experts, comparably durable products could come from any industry.

  The concept of megamachines extended this critique into organizational life. Large hierarchical organizations, in Mumford's framework, functioned as machines that used human beings as their components. He traced the pattern through the builders of the pyramids, the Roman Empire, and the armies of the World Wars up to what he described as modern technocratic nuclear powers. He used the Soviet and American power complexes, symbolized by the Kremlin and the Pentagon, as his contemporary examples. He observed that meticulous accounting, standardization, and the elevation of military leaders to divine status appeared repeatedly across these structures. He cited the repetitive imagery of Egyptian paintings featuring enlarged pharaohs alongside the public display of enlarged portraits of Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin as parallel examples of the same phenomenon.

  For the human components of these megamachines, he coined the term Eichmanns, referring to Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi official who organized logistics in support of the Holocaust. Mumford argued that technological improvements such as the assembly line and instant wireless global communication could weaken the psychological barriers that normally prevent people from carrying out extreme commands without ethical engagement. The last sentence of The Pentagon of Power spoke to what he believed was still possible: "for those of us who have thrown off the myth of the machine, the next move is ours: for the gates of the technocratic prison will open automatically, despite their rusty ancient hinges, as soon as we choose to walk out."

• 6. Organic Humanism and Biotechnics

  ›

  In The Condition of Man, published in 1944, Mumford gave his core philosophical position a name: organic humanism. The name was chosen carefully. It set explicit limits on human possibilities by anchoring them to the nature of the human body. Air quality, food availability, water quality, and the comfort of spaces were not secondary concerns for Mumford. They were the frame within which any serious thinking about progress had to operate.

  He held that what distinguished human beings from other animals was not primarily our use of tools but our use of language and symbols. He believed that the sharing of information among participants in early societies was natural and had been the foundation on which more complex social forms were built. He had hopes that this process of collective pooling of knowledge would continue as humanity moved forward, and he read the emerging technologies of communication with that hope in mind, even as he grew more skeptical of other technological trends.

  Biotechnics emerged as the practical counterpart to organic humanism. Mumford developed the term most fully in the later sections of The Pentagon of Power. He defined it as technology that operated in an ecologically responsible manner, that refused to ignore the relationship between the state of the living organism and the state of its environment. He believed biotechnic consciousness was already beginning to assert itself during his lifetime, emerging as a later stage in the evolution of Darwinian thinking about human life.

  His treatment of money as a technology illustrated the argument with unusual sharpness. Money, he wrote, had created as a side effect a context for irrational accumulation, because it eliminated the burdensome aspects of object-wealth by making wealth abstract. In earlier eras, when wealth was measured in grains, land, and animals, plenitude had naturally set limits on acquisition. Once wealth became pure quantity rather than quality, those limits dissolved. He saw the movement toward electronic money as a continuation of that same abstraction, producing forms of economic stress not yet fully understood.

  Mumford was an avid reader of Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy of the organism, and that influence is visible throughout. The biotechnic society, in his vision, would pursue what he called "qualitative richness, amplitude, spaciousness, and freedom from quantitative pressures and crowding," directing technology toward balance and wholeness rather than unchecked expansion. Patrick Geddes had given him the term "livability" decades earlier, and biotechnics was where that concept finally found its technical expression.

• 7. Lasting Reach

  ›

  The range of thinkers who acknowledged Mumford's influence is striking in its variety. Jacques Ellul, E. F. Schumacher, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Murray Bookchin, Thomas Merton, Marshall McLuhan, and Kevin Carson all worked in territory Mumford had mapped. His ideas on cities, ecology, and technology shaped the thinking of Barry Commoner and Bookchin within the American environmental movement. Ramachandra Guha credited Mumford's work with containing some of the earliest and finest thinking on bioregionalism, anti-nuclearism, biodiversity, alternate energy paths, ecological urban planning, and appropriate technology.

  His relationship with McLuhan was not simply one of influence. Mumford eventually launched a critical assessment of McLuhan, who argued that technology, not the natural environment, would ultimately shape human nature. From the perspective of organic humanism, Mumford recognized that possibility, but only as what he called a nightmare scenario. The two men represented genuinely opposed positions on what the future of technology meant for the species.

  Ayn Rand drew from Mumford in a different direction entirely. He became an inspiration for Ellsworth Toohey, the antagonist in her 1943 novel The Fountainhead. Berenice Abbott's photographs of New York City in the late 1930s also reflected his influence. The film The City, made in 1939, extended his urban arguments into visual form.

  Mumford was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 1941 and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1947. He received the Frank Jewett Mather Award for art criticism in 1963, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1964, the Prix mondial Cino Del Duca in 1976, and the National Medal of Arts in 1986. He died on the 26th of January 1990 at his home in Amenia, New York, at the age of 94. Nine years after his death, that house was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. His wife Sophia, who died in 1997 at the age of 97, had shared the last chapter of a life that began in Queens and ended having touched nearly every serious conversation about cities, technology, and what it means to build a world fit for human beings.