bkrvssep


 

488 College & Research Libraries September 1998 

ships of textual elements in the transmis­
sion of meaning. In Ong’s work already 
mentioned, an entire section is devoted 
to “typographic space,” and he observes 
correctly that what is today called white 
space is of “high significance” for the 
communication of complexity in “the 
modern and post-modern world.” But as 
a convention and a technology of the 
word, Ong ascribes it to typography (i.e., 
to print, instead of “merely to writing”). 
He overlooks the microtextual origins of 
white space as a coformative of meaning. 
Saenger’s great service is to show that the 
discovery of the semiotic potential of 
space is centuries older than print. 

This book therefore leads us to con­
sider once again the meaning of technol­
ogy in relation to reading and writing. 
Technology did not begin its association 
with verbal communication with the in­
vention of printing. Instead, medieval 
scribes such as Gerbert, Richer, Fulbert, 
and Abbo were—no less than 
Gutenberg—innovators and “technolo­
gists of the word.” Graphic ideas were 
tried and discarded (e.g., the use of capi­
tals to mark word endings, not just be­
ginnings, or the use of the long j at word 
or sentence beginnings). Scribes even ex­
perimented with inserting spaces be­
tween syllables as well as between words 
in what Saenger refers to as “aerated 
text.” This is a visit to a museum where 
we see all varieties of clever innovations 
that have nonetheless ended up on the 
scrap heap of history, which in turn gives 
us a sense for the hit-and-miss, trial-and­
error, by no means linear way in which 
we have arrived at the graphic conven­
tions by which we live today. If science is 
a process of objectification—that is, the 
taking of that which is familiar and mak­
ing it strange so that by describing the 
strangeness, one comprehends the famil­
iar for the first time, Saenger has written 
a profoundly scientific book. With the 
intuitions and authority of the thoroughly 
trained humanist, but also the toolbox of 
the cognitive psychologist, he has sub­

jected the field of medieval writing and 
reading to a scientific review that meets 
high standards in a number of disciplines. 
For the first time, we see the evolution of 
writing, print, and computing not as a 
succession of fitful revolutions but, 
rather, as a continuum of technological 
innovation. Many of the issues we face 
today (e.g., the readability of extended 
texts on scrollable computer screens) had 
their roots in the ruminations of Irish 
scribes of the seventh century.—Jeffrey 
Garrett, Northwestern University. 

Universities and Empire: Money and Politics 
in the Social Sciences during the Cold War. 
Ed. Christopher Simpson. New York: 
The New Pr., 1998. 273p. $27.50 (ISBN 
1-56584-387-8). 

Universities and Empire is the second vol­
ume in The New Press’s Cold War and the 
University Series. It is indeed, as the dust 
jacket says, a major contribution to a 
growing field of inquiry. It encompasses 
an examination of politics and funding 
of intellectual life in universities cover­
ing a period that begins with WWI and 
includes the post–Cold War period when 
the corporate juggernaut takes over from 
the military national security forces. Al­
though it follows from the first book in 
this series, The Cold War and the Univer­
sity, it goes beyond that earlier contribu­
tion to include a picture of what this pe­
riod looked like from a Russian point of 
view and what happens when corporate 
interests boldly begin a redefinition of the 
American university. 

It is widely believed in this country 
that university professors have a mandate 
to carry out certain functions related to 
teaching, learning, and the creation of 
new knowledge. In the process of carry­
ing out these functions, faculty (although 
not all faculty) have supported free and 
open discussion of ideas, and have fos­
tered and fought for a nonoppressive envi­
ronment in the university. The collective re­
sult of faculty responsibilities is what gives 
the university its reputation and prestige. 



Book Reviews 489 

In addition, there is an increasingly 
widespread feeling that managers of 
American universities have not ad­
equately protected the prestige and repu­
tation of the university, and this is par­
ticularly so in universities that were 
closely tied to the military–industrial 
complex during the Cold War. Those who 
think about such things argue that the 
arm’s-length function of the university is 
important to protect. We are not to be in­
tertwined with business or government 
because such intertwining breaches the 
independence of the academy which has 
been fought for throughout our history. 
Universities and Empire focuses on how 
such issues as the absence of arm’s length 
have impacted the social sciences. 

The key question underpinning this 
work is: How did the Cold War shape 
what was taken to be scientific “fact” in 
the social sciences? It explores the en­
tanglements of the military–industrial 
complex and their legacies in the univer­
sity systems. Eight contributors represent 
the fields of history, political science, in­
ternational relations, history and philoso­
phy of science, economics, space science, 
and mass media. It is a book about power 
and knowledge in which the military in­
telligentsia and propaganda institutions 
are key players. What they reveal is a 
widespread interweaving of social sci­
ence research with national security ap­
paratuses, methodologies, and the rank­
ing of knowledges in particular disci­
plines. The essays concerned with the 
fields of development studies and area 
studies give clear examples of how inter­
disciplinary programs were set up at the 
instigation of government security initia­
tives; they were not initiated by disci­
plines. All such programs were involved 
in the dissemination of modernity and 
global capitalism to “avoid the devil.” 
The “devil” figure was referring to the 
potential loss of resources, markets, and 
trade made possible by development. 
These special university research pro­
grams were often funded by the Central 

Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Air Force, 
and/or cooperative foundations. And, of 
course, all this offered opportunities for 
academic entrepreneurship. 

What this entrepreneurship covered 
was dramatically summarized by the edi­
tor, which, he said, ranged “from seem­
ingly innocuous population surveys and 
mapping, to cultural analysis of persua­
sive tactics suitable for particular cul­
tures, to consulting on the design and op­
eration of the special machinery of repres­
sion and terror,” and later, studies on 
“physical and psychological responses to 
prolonged sensory deprivation, im­
proved police interrogation, ‘scientific’ 
studies of radiation’s effects on prison­
ers and the corpses of paupers, and other 
forms of scientific abuse presented to the 
world as medical or social science stud­
ies.” Simpson speaks of research titles 
such as “Social versus the Physical Effects 
of Nuclear Bombing.” And, at the time, all 
this was thought to be “normal” social sci­
ence, even prestigious social science. As the 
editor notes, social scientists were operat­
ing within a paradigm of domination. 

The individual essays examine the 
submerged history of the social sciences 
during this period of Cold War and af­
terward with the accelerating corporate 
penetration of the American university. 
They show how power plays in the 
knowledge game. We learn of social sci­
entists who are seduced by the model of 
a BIG social science. The inclusion of an 
unpublished essay of Max Millikan and 
Walt Rostow makes the essays that fol­
low most believable. These two authors 
are totally unselfconscious about 
America’s mission as they boldly sketch 
the rationales for modernization and de­
velopment. Irene Gendzier and Ellen 
Herman use their experienced eyes to 
examine the rise to power of these ideo­
logical instruments and report that even 
media exposure did nothing to stop an 
ever-expanding mission. Particularly in­
teresting was the essay by Kevin Gaines 
on African American scholars who were 



490 College & Research Libraries September 1998 

driven out of our country and who found 
a haven in newly liberated Ghana. Bruce 
Cummings describes how power and 
money shaped the enterprise, and for 
those who say it is hard to insult faculty, 
they can now add it is not hard to seduce 
faculty. In Cummings’s story, the prod­
uct of academic knowledge generally fol­
lowed changes in world power and world 
markets. So much for independent lead­
ership in the academy. The Slava 
Gerovitch piece describes the interplay 
between the state and academy in Russia 
and concludes with the surprising obser­
vation that it was very much like what 
was happening in the United States at the 
time. There was more in common than in 
difference between Russia and the U.S. 
The final essay by Lawrence Soley indi­
cates how the national security state was 
supplanted by corporate-sponsored 
scholarship and knowledge to create an 
environment conducive to corporate in­
terests. In this essay, Soley describes what 
must be obvious, but is not, to most uni­
versity professors, especially at the 
“great” universities. By my observation, 
the takeover is coming close to total, es­
pecially in certain quarters such as busi­
ness schools and integrative biology pro­
grams, but elsewhere as well. We can see 
it in the names of companies scattered all 
over the University of California at Ber­
keley, and elsewhere. 

Such examinations of a submerged his­
tory make the reader once again recon­
sider the nature of knowledge. When pri­
vate interest pervades the universities, 
just as when state interests pervade, 
knowledge produced becomes suspect 
and credibility becomes an issue. Why 
should anyone believe what biochemists 
are saying about pesticides not being re­
lated to cancer cause if there is no arm’s 
length? Indeed, why should special-inter­
est knowledge be funded by the taxpayer 
for private interests, they may ask. Uni­
versities and Empire provides us with the 
nitty-gritty with which to think about 
such issues and insight as to what it will 

take to remedy them, and what we lose if 
we do not. This book is a sobering contri­
bution as to how we got to where we are. 
It is well written, accessible, and well in­
formed, and should stimulate thinking 
among students, faculty, and taxpayers 
alike.—Laura Nader, University of Califor­
nia-Berkeley. 

The Role of Professional Associations. Ed. Joy 
Thomas. Champaign: University of Il­
linois Graduate School of Library and 
Information Science, Library Trends 46 
(fall 1977): 229–425. $18.50. 

This is a rather pedestrian addition to the 
usually distinguished Library Trends se­
ries. In many cases, it seems that the ar­
ticles were assigned, and dutifully 
cranked out, but without much panache 
or enthusiasm. In other cases, however, 
they are quite lively. But, distressingly, 
none of them ask the key question that 
should have been the basis of any seri­
ous discussion of professional associa­
tions: What is a professional association, 
as opposed to a voluntary association that 
admits anyone, degreed librarian or not, 
who cares to join? Is ALA really a profes­
sional association, or merely one in which 
most of the members happen to be (but 
do not have to be) librarians? The lead 
article, “Professional Associations or 
Unions?” by Tina Hovekamp, would 
have benefited particularly from some 
awareness of this definitional issue, as she 
searches for some sort of tertium quid, 
rather than the false dilemma of having 
to choose simply between a union and a 
“professional association.” She concludes 
that a combination of both is needed, in­
dicating the usefulness of considering 
new models—but she never does. 

What we have here, therefore, is a book 
about professionalism that never defines 
professional—a serious flaw. That having 
been said, however, some of the articles 
do have value, and one cannot deny the 
overall importance of the volume’s 
theme. Librarians spend great amounts 
of time working in these associations,