1 Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1968, p. 151.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., pp. 228, 321.

3 Ibid., p. 322.

4 Ibid., p. 4.

5 Ibid., p. 324.

6 See Manfred Stanley, Dept. of Sociology, Syracuse University, N.Y., ‘Technicism: The Modern Demonology’, paper presented to the 7th World Congress of the International Sociological Association.

7 Arendt, The Human Condition, p. 273.

8 Marcuse, Herbert, One‐Dimensional Man: The Ideology of Industrial Society, London, Sphere Books, 1968, p. II.Google Scholar

9 Ibid., pp. 19, 13.

10 Marcuse, Herbert, ‘Repressive Tolerance’, in Barrington Moore, Robert Paul Jr, and Marcuse, Herbert, A Critiqtre of Pure Tolerance, London, Jonathan Cape, 1969.Google Scholar

11 Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., The Crisis of Confidence, London, Andre Deutsch, 1969, P. 39.Google Scholar

12 This seems fair even bearing in mind his more recent work, but see Ellul, Jacques, ‘Technique, Institutions and Awareness’, American Behavioural Scientist, XI, 6, 07–08 1968, pp. 38–42.Google Scholar

13 Ellul, Jacques, The Technological Society, London, Jonathan Cape, 1965, p. xxxi.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., pp. 263, 279, 275.

15 Ellul, Jacques, ‘The Technological Order’, in Stover, Carl F. (ed.), The Technological Order, Detroit, Wayne State U.P., 1963, p. 11.Google Scholar

16 Wiener, Norbert, The Human Use of Human Beings, London, Sphere Books, 1968, P. 157.Google Scholar

17 Wiener, Norbert, Cybernetics, New York, Wiley, 1948, pp. 37–8.Google ScholarPubMed

18 Seligman, Ben B., Most Notorious Victory: Man in an Age of Automation, New York, The Free Press, 1966, p. 400.Google Scholar

19 Mannheim, Karl, Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1940, pp. 373–4.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., pp. 243, 247–8, 337.

21 Ibid., p. 378.

22 See, for example, Silberman, Charles E., The Myths of Automation, New York, Harper & Row, 1966,Google Scholar chap. 6. ‘Is Technology Taking Over?’

23 Boguslaw, Robert, The New Utopians, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice‐Hall, 1965, p. 202.Google Scholar

24 Friedrich, Carl J. and Brzezinski, Zbigniew K., Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy, New York, Praeger, 1966, p. 22.Google Scholar

25 Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘Modern Science and Political Power’, Columbia Law Review, lxiv, 1964, pp. 1386–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Westin, Alan F., Privacy and Freedom, New York, Atheneum, 1968, pp. 23, 24, 368.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., p. 399.

28 Roszak, Theodore, The Making of a Counter Culture: Reflections on the Technocratic Society and its Youthful Opposition, London, Faber & Faber, 1970, pp. 266–7.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., p. 267.

30 Reich, Charles A., The Greening of America, New York, Random House, 970.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., p. 90.

32 Ibid., p. 300.

33 Ibid., pp. 350, 357, 369.

34 Calder, Nigel, Technopolis, London, MacGibbon & Kee, 1969, p. 287.Google Scholar

35 Harrington, Michael, The Accidental Century, London, Weidenfeld & Nicol‐son, 1965.Google Scholar

36 Michael, Donald N., The Unprepared Society, New York, Basic Books, 1968, P. 3.Google Scholar

37 Drucker, Peter F., The Age of Discontinuity, London, Heinemann, 1969, Chap. 10.Google Scholar

38 Miliband, Ralph, The State in Capitalist Society, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1969, p. 237.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., p. 181.

40 Ibid., p. 273.

41 Ibid., pp. 272, 276.

42 Heilbroner, Robert L., The Future as History, New York, Harper Torch‐books, 1968, p. 167.Google Scholar

43 Ibid., p. 158

44 Ibid., p. 187.

45 Ibid., p. 168.

46 Ibid., p. 56.

47 Ibid., Chap. ii and pp. 170, 189, cf. Segal, Ronald, America's Receding Future, London, Meidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968.Google Scholar

48 Rotenstreich, Nathan, ‘Technology and Politics’, International Philosophical Quarterly, VII, 1967, pp. 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Brzezinski, Zbigniew, ‘America in the Technetronic Age’, Encounter, xxx, 1, 01 1968, pp. 16–26.Google Scholar

50 Boulding, Kenneth, The Meaning of the Twentieth Century: The Great Transition, London, Allen & Unwin, 1964.Google Scholar

51 Schick, Allen, ‘The Cybernetic State’, Transaction, Fulton, Mo., VII, 4, 02 1970, pp. 14–26.Google Scholar

52 Ibid., p. 18.

53 Ibid., p. 22.

54 Ibid., p. 26.

55 Bell, Daniel, The End of Ideology: On Exhausting of Political Ideas in the Fifties, New York, Collier Books, 1961.Google Scholar

56 Bell, Daniel, ‘The Post‐Industrial Society: A Speculative View’, in Hutchings, E. and , E. (eds.), Scientific Progress and Human Values, New York, Elsevier, 1967, P. 157.Google Scholar

57 Bell, Daniel, ‘Notes on the Post‐Industrial Society (I)’, The Public Interest, No. 6, Winter 1967, p. 25.Google Scholar (This is another version of the above.)

58 Kumar has made a shrewd comment on this. The ideology of futurology, he points out, ‘is being created by the very groups who are said by the ideology to be on the way to becoming the most powerful and influential in the post‐industrial society’. ‘My feeling’, he adds, ‘is that the futurologists underestimate the irrationality of political motivations, and may find themselves displaced with scant respect for their supposed indispensability.’ Krishan Kumar, ‘Futurology’, The Listener, 18 February 1971, p. 207.

In The Reforming of General Education (New York: Columbia U.P., 1966) Bell itemizes four problems which he says the university must overcome before it can successfully fulfil its central role in the post‐industrial society. The third and fourth of these problems are coming to terms with its function as a political institution, and removing the disjunction between culture and social structure, ‘a disjunction expressed most directly in the two major orientations towards the future that divide the intelligentsia today—the technocratic and the apocalyptic’ (PP. 303–12).

59 Scientific Progress and Human Values, p. 168.

60 Bell, Daniel, ‘The Commission on the Year 2000’, Futures II, 3 (09 1970), pp. 263–9Google Scholar (foreword to first of a series of volumes, this one being U.S. Government in Year 2000, ed. Harvey Perloff).

61 Scientific Progress and Human Valaes, p. 168.

62 Bell, Daniel, ‘Notes, etc. (2)’, The Public Interest, No. 7, Spring 1967, p. 105.Google Scholar

63 Cf. Diebold, John, ‘Goals to Match our Means’, in Dechert, Charles R. (ed.), The Social Impact of Cybernetics, Notre Dame, Ind., University of Notre Dame Press, 1966, p. 9.Google Scholar

64 Ferkiss, Victor C., Technological Man: The Myth and the Reality, London, Heinemann, 1969, p. 271.Google Scholar

65 Ibid., Chap. 7, ‘Technology and the Rediscovery of Politics’.

66 Neumann, Franz L., ‘Approaches to the Study of Political Power’, Political Science Quarterly, lxv, 1950, p. 170, quoted at p. 157.Google Scholar

67 Ferkiss, Technological Man, pp. 181–2.

68 Ibid., p. 184.

69 Mesthene, Emmanuel G., Technological Change, New York, New American Library Inc., 1970, pp. 80–1.Google Scholar

70 Mesthene, Emmanuel G., ‘How Technology will Shape the Future’, Science, clxi, 12 07 1968, p. 142.Google Scholar

71 Ibid.

72 Lane, Robert E., ‘The Decline of Politics and Ideology in a Knowledgeable Society’, American Sociological Review, XXXI, 1966, p. 662.Google Scholar

73 Wheeler, Henry, Democracy in a Revolutionary Era: The Political Order Today, Santa Barbara , Calif., Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1970, p. 119.Google Scholar

74 Bray, Jeremy, ‘Technology and Society: The Future of Systems and Ideologies’, Anticipation, Geneva, World Council of Churches, No. 4, 10 1970, p. 10.Google Scholar

75 Toffler, Alvin, Future Shock, London, Bodley Head, 1970, pp. 400–30.Google Scholar

76 Ibid., p. 424.

77 For his earlier ideas see Schon, Donald A., Technology and Change: The New Heraclitus, New York, Delacorte Press, 1967 Google Scholar. The Reith Lectures, ‘Change and Industrial Society’, were printed in The Listener, lxxxiv, 2173–8, 19 November‐24 December 1970.

78 Ibid., p. 875 (6th Lecture).

79 Ibid:‘In eras of stability, the roles that come into prominence…are the stable roles at the centre organizations. In our time the roles that became critical are the network roles.’

80 Ibid., p. 810 (4th lecture). See also The Times, editorial, 21 December 1970.

81 Bennis, Warren G. and Slater, Philip E., The Temporary Society, New York, Harper & Row, 1968, Chap. I, p. 13.Google Scholar

82 Latey, Maurice, Tyranny, London, Macmillan, 1969, p. 305.Google Scholar

83 Richta, Radovan, Civilisation at the Crossroads, International Arts and Sciences Press Inc., 1968, p. 253.Google Scholar

84 Mandel, Ernest Marxist Economic Theory, London, Merlin Press, 1968, PP. 522, 541–2.Google Scholar

85 Ibid., p. 606.

86 Ibid., p. 673.

87 Ibid., p. 677.

88 Mumford, Lewis Technics and Civilisation, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967, p. 109.Google Scholar Mumford's is an ‘evolutionary’ theory, like those of Marx and Rostow, rather than a ‘cyclical’ theory, such as those put forward by Spengler or Toynbee.

89 Ibid., pp. 213, 216.

90 Ibid., pp. 403–6.

91 Cf. Kostelanetz, Richard Beyond Left and liight: Radical Thought for our Times, New York, William Morrow, 1968, p. xi.Google Scholar

92 Buckminster Fuller, R. Utopia or Oblivion, London, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1970, p. 324.Google Scholar

93 Ibid., pp. 391, 235.

94 Ibid., p. 335.

95 Landes, Davied S. The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present, Cambridge, Cambridge U.P., 1969, P. 555.Google Scholar

96 Kateb, George, Utopia and its Enemies, New York, The Free Press of Glen‐coe, 1963, p. 106.Google Scholar

97 McLuhan, Marshall Understanding Media, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964, P. 344.Google Scholar

98 Ibid., p. 57.

99 Miller, Jonathan, McLuhan, London, Fontana/Collins, 1971, pp. 131–2.Google Scholar Cf. Finkelstein, Sidney, Sense and Nonsense of McLuhan, New York, International Publishers, 1968, p. 117:Google Scholar McLuhan's ‘vision of an electronic, automated, computerised dictatorship controlling the population by beaming radio and TV waves at them is presented tongue in cheek, as a sick joke’. Elsewhere he comments that what McLuhan calls ‘involvement’ is in fact ‘brainless’ (p. 100).

100 Easton, David, ‘The New Revolution in Political Science’, American Political Science Review, lxiii, 4 12 1969, 1058.Google Scholar

101 Kahn, Herman and Wiener, Anthony J., The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty‐three Years, New York, Macmillan, 1967.Google Scholar

102 See Akzin, Benjamin, ‘On Conjecture in Political Science’, Political Studies, XIV, 1966, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

103 Some of the better‐known works are Baier, Kurt and Rescher, Nicholas (eds.), Values and the Future, New York, The Free Press, 1969;Google Scholar Jungk, Robert and Galtung, Johan (eds.), Mankind 2000, London, Allen & Unwin, 1969;Google Scholar ‘Toward the Year 2000: Work in Progress’, Daedalus, Summer 1967. There are several other books with ‘the year 2000’ in their title. Erich Jantsch, Technological Forecasting in Perspective, Paris, OECD, 1967, provides a good annotated bibliography of the forecasting field as it stood at that time. One particularly worthwhile book (still) seems to be Dennis Gabor, Inventing the Future, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1964. Also from Britain has now come Michael Young (ed.), Forecasting and the Social Sciences, London, Heinemann, 1968, a collection of papers for the SSRC's Committee on the Next Thirty Years. The latter is a partial equivalent of de Jouvenel's Futuribles project or the American Commission on the Year 2000. To confirm that we‐have‐been‐there‐before, there is Armytage, W. H. G., Yesterday's Tomowows: A Historical Survey of Future Societies, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968.Google Scholar

104 de Jouvenel, Bertrand, The Art of Conjecture, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1967, p. 238 Google Scholar: ‘a political forecast is not given to us as a bonus once we have completed an economic and social forecast.…’

105 Kariel, Henry S., ‘Expanding the Political Present’, American Political Science Review, lxiii, 3 09 1969 , pp. 768–76.Google Scholar

106 Dror, Yehezkel, ‘Alternative Domestic Political Futures: Research Needs and Research Design’, Ftrtures, II, 4, 12 1970 , 302–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

107 Kahn & Wiener, The Year 2000, p. 23, and cf. p. 24.

108 Andrew Shonfield, ‘Thinking about the Future’, Encounter, February 1969, PP. 16, 19.

109 Ibid., p. 25.

110 From Kahn & Wiener, The Year 2000, p. 25.

111 Lewis A. Gunn, ‘Government, Technology and Planning’, to be published in 1971 as a chapter in J. N. Wolfe (ed.), The Impact of Technology.

112 Editorial, Observer, 27 November 1966.

113 Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Minister of Technology (Mintech) at the beginning of 1967, New Technology, No. I, January 1967.

114 William Plowden, ‘Mintech Moves On’, New Society, 12 January 1967.

115 Times Business News editorial, ‘Galbraith Builds His House’, 4 September 1967; Guardian editorial, ‘Bureaucrats and Businessmen’, 19 December 1966.

116 See for instance ‘White‐Hot Revolution?’, five articles in New Scientist, 26 September 1968, pp. 644–53.

117 Gunn, in The Impact of Technology, op. cit.

118 Anthony Wedgwood Benn, ‘Science, Europe and a New World’, New Scientist and science Journal, 18 February 1971, pp. 348–50.

119 Servan‐Schreiber, J. J., The American Challenge, London, Hamish Hamilton. 1968 PP. 3, 32.Google Scholar

120 Harold Wilson, Guildhall speech, as reported in The Times, 14 November 1967. On the ‘European technological imperatives’ see the review article by Miller, Linda B., Europe's Futures: Change and Continuity?,’ Journal of Common Market Studies, IX, I 09 1970 Google Scholar, esp. part ii, ‘Science and the State’, pp. 103–8.

121 Goldring, Mary, ‘The Atomic Incubus’, New Society, 28 10 1965 , PP. 7–9.Google Scholar

122 John Maddox, ‘The Atomic Future’, Guardian, 16 April 1964.

123 ‘Is I.C.L. in Trouble?’, The Economist, Business Brief, 27 February 1971, PP. 56–7

124 Shirley Williams, M.P., ‘The Responsibility of Science’, The Times, Saturday Review, 27 February 1971. She concludes: ‘We need new machinery quickly if we are to use science more wisely than we have done up to now.’

125 Edward Heath, speech to Institute of Directors' Conference, reported in Financial Times, 6 November 1970.

126 As reported in The Times, 16 March 1971, Ford of Britain had at the time a major industrial dispute on their hands.

127 Report of the Committee on the Civil Service, London, HMSO, 1968, Cmnd. 3638, Vol. I, paras. 30–1, p. 16. In this context one should also note the establishment by the 1970 conservative government of a Central Policy Review Staff headed by Lord Rothschild—‘the Cabinet office “think‐tank”’ in the words of the Guardian, 7 November 1970. editorial.

128 Royal Commission on Local Government in England 1966–69, Vol. I, Report, London, HMSO, 1969, Cmnd. 4040, para. 488, p. 125.

129 Sir Solly retired from his official responsibilities in March 1971.

130 Harold Jackson, ‘A Man for all Sciences’, Guardian, 7 April 1967.

131 Vig, Norman J. Science and Technology in British Politics, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1968, p. 161.Google Scholar

132 Crick, Bernard The Reform of Parliament, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968, PP. 2, 245.Google Scholar

133 Anthony Wedgwood Benn, writing in The Sundy Times, 28 February 1971, p. 12.

134 Warner, Malcolm and Stone, Michael, The Data Bank Society, London, Allen & Unwin, 1970;Google Scholar Thompson, Anthony A., Big Brother in Britain Today, London, Michael Joseph, 1970.Google Scholar