Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
www.elsevier.nl/locate/ces
Danckwerts Memorial Lecture
Chemical engineering and the postmodern world J. M. Prausnitz ∗ Department of Chemical Engineering, University of California, and Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA Received 7 November 2000
I am grateful to the Institution of Chemical Engineers for inviting me to present this year’s Danckwerts Lecture. It is well known that a professor loves nothing more than an audience. I am keenly aware of the de1nition given by the British-American poet, Auden, who said that while many people talk in their sleep, a professor is someone who talks in other people’s sleep. Regrettably, I never met Professor Danckwerts but early in my career, I became familiar with his pioneering publications. During my graduate-student years at Princeton, his publications were required reading, not only for courses but, more important, for passing Princeton’s severe doctoral examination. Danckwerts’ work on mixing and on residence-time distributions was of direct use in my Ph.D. thesis concerning chemical-reactor design. Because I was much impressed by the elegance of these publications and by their happy combination of fundamentals and applications, they made a signi1cant contribution to my education. It is indeed an honor to speak here in his memory. My subject today concerns change, in particular, the changes that the chemical engineering profession is experiencing today and is likely to experience more intensely tomorrow. To say that chemical engineering is in a state of transition is certainly not new; it’s always been that way. But what is the nature of this transition as we enter the twenty-1rst century? I would like to share with you some thoughts toward an attempt—at least in part—to answer that question. It is now conventional wisdom to point out that chemical engineering is rapidly spreading into new technical areas described by such words as electronic materials, green chemistry, ecology, smart materials, drug-delivery systems, etc., etc., and above all, biotechnology. Because it is so di=cult to give a contemporary de1nition of ∗
Tel.: +1-510-642-3592; fax: +1-510-642-4778. E-mail address:
[email protected] (J. M. Prausnitz).
chemical engineering, it has become fashionable to use an operational de1nition, that is, to say that chemical engineering is what chemical engineers do. And what do they do? At Berkeley, only a small fraction, perhaps 20% of our recent graduates, go to work in the conventional chemical and petroleum industries. Most recent graduates, especially those with advanced degrees, 1nd employment in industries that either did not exist 10 or 20 years ago, or did not, until recently, discover the usefulness and relevance of chemical engineers in their operations. — But all that is well known and has been amply discussed at technical meetings and in the professional literature. My concerns about the future of our profession are rooted in an undeniable fact that is all too often neglected: Chemical engineering is not apart from but a part of the society that it serves through the services and products that our profession provides. It is this inevitable and unavoidable intimate relation between chemical engineering and the world-at-large that provides a point of departure when we inquire into the future of our profession. Chemical engineering will change because the world is changing, stimulated not only by developments in technology, but also by developments in politics, social institutions, economics, etc., etc., in other words, by changes in the ways that people think and feel and choose to live their lives, by their ethics and beliefs, by their attitudes and expectations. A quick glance at our newspapers and television is su=cient to suggest that these changes are more pronounced and more rapid than at any previous time in history. Because these pronounced and rapid changes are sure to inDuence chemical engineering, I have chosen the title: “Chemical Engineering and the Postmodern World”. Before elaborating on what I see as the postmodern world, I want to emphasize the close relation between chemical engineering and society with a representative illustration from my late Berkeley colleague, Professor Irving Fatt, a leading researcher in the technology of
0009-2509/01/$ - see front matter ? 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 0 9 - 2 5 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 6 1 - 6
3628
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
contact lenses. In his class, Fatt asked the students: “Who is responsible for the multibillion-dollar contact-lens industry?” A few students mentioned some prominent names in materials science. No, said Fatt. The father— more correctly, the mother—of the contact-lens industry was a writer of humorous essays and poems, popular in the forties and 1fties, author of the oft-quoted line: “Men seldom make passes at girls who wear glasses”. The wide use of contact lenses is not due primarily to developments in polymer science but, instead, to society’s wish for personal attractiveness and convenience. The fundamental existence of chemical engineering is its response to society’s needs and expectations. Although used extensively by sociologists, artists, political scientists, literary critics and increasingly by the media, the word “postmodern” de1es simple de1nition; it is a catch-all word with many diJerent shades of meaning, depending not only on who says it but also on the particular purpose and agenda for which it is intended. However, in these diJerent shades of meaning, there are some common elements. I now want to summarize these elements in some detail and then comment on how chemical engineering can and inevitably must respond to the challenge of postmodernism. Perhaps the simplest initial way to understand the word “postmodern” is to see it as a revolt to what is often called the Enlightenment Program, that movement starting with the rise of Western science about 350 years ago, stimulated by the triumph of Newtonian mechanics. The Enlightenment Program emphasized reason and logic over intuition and revelation; it did not deny art and religion, but it gave higher priority to mathematics and physics; it promoted the idea that human problems could be solved by rational procedures, that increasing scienti1c knowledge would produce not only rising prosperity but, in addition, would serve toward the perfection of man, toward building a world of material riches and universal happiness. While in many ways the Enlightenment Program has been remarkably successful, it has also created new problems not only through the excesses of technology—pollution, overpopulation, gridlock traf1c, etc., etc.,—but in addition, through alienation of the individual who, for example, is isolated by the narrow specialization of his work on a production line and by the monotony of a modular housing project where any one apartment is identical to every other. The results of the Enlightenment Program, good and bad, are conveniently called Modernism. Postmodernism—in its most simplistic form—is an attempt to go beyond the unwelcome features of modernism, beyond the con1nement that science-spawned technology has visited upon the soul, to restore man’s dignity, individuality and personal freedom. Complaints about how technology has robbed man of his humanity are hardly new; numerous artists, novelists, philosophers etc., have expressed such complaints for at
least 300 years. How then does the postmodern revolt diJer from those of the past? Unlike previous critics, postmodernists not only complain about science but, in addition, deny its legitimacy as the acknowledged criterion of truth. Previous critics, for example, the Romantics of the 19th century, did not question science’s authority; their complaint was that natural science should restrict itself to material issues and should not enter the so-called human sciences, that is, the humanities where the methods of natural science are misplaced. The Romantics distinguished between matters of the heart and matters of the mind: science is “ok” but only within strict boundaries. The postmodern view does not reject science but it denies that science has any special claim to truth; its claim to truth is at best a delusion or at worst a fraud, but in any case, the ways of science are inherently no better than other ways of knowing or perceiving the world. While it is misleading to generalize, many postmodern philosophers regard science as a “social construct”, a set of procedures and institutions established over recent centuries by scientists for their own gain and advantage. Some postmodern theorists claim that science was invented to oppress the working class, or people in the underdeveloped world. Some feminists claim that science was constructed by men to subjugate women. While these are extreme views, a common postmodern view is to deny any objective truth, scienti1c or otherwise; this view says that whatever statement anyone may make is always contingent; it is irreparably inDuenced by the particular needs, feelings, history or attributes of whoever makes the statement, and similarly, the interpretation of what the statement means is irreparably inDuenced by the needs, feelings, background and attributes of whoever reads or hears that statement. This denial of any possible objective truth is the essence of deconstruction, a strong component in postmodernism. One of my Berkeley colleagues told me about a conversation in his home during dinner. It was late in 1999 when television and newspapers recalled the 1rst landing on the moon, 30 years earlier. My colleague’s seven-year old daughter said “That landing didn’t really happen; it was only staged for television”. My surprised colleague then learned that this (postmodern) remark came from the girl’s teacher who had told her class that the moon landing was 1ction, conceived and 1lmed in Hollywood for political reasons and for serving the interests of the media. My colleague promptly visited the school’s principal who was pleasant but non-committal. She called in the teacher so that all three could have a nice talk. The teacher, a smiling and aJable youngish woman, listened politely but was unmoved by my colleague’s arguments. She replied, in eJect, that she respected his opinions but did not share them and maintained that her point of view was worth as much as his. The principal expressed no
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
3629
Fig. 2. Alienation: our institutions appear to be remote from our needs.
Fig. 1. Alienation: the design of the wall continues in the man’s clothing. He has lost his individuality.
view of her own; like so many academic administrators, her only goal was to keep the peace. And that was the end of that; my colleague’s daughter now goes to another school. While this anecdote provides no de1nite evidence, it indicates an attitude that is far from rare. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this anecdote is its location; the school was not in a village of the American hinterland but in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the most highly educated and most enlightened areas of the United States. Let me now illustrate some of the cultural trends that I have outlined. My reason for reviewing these trends here follows from my 1rm belief that what happens in the culture around us is sure to aJect how we practice our profession. First, two illustrations to show alienation, the loss of man’s individual freedom within the con1nes of modernity. Fig. 1 shows a cover from the New Yorker magazine, a man sitting on a bench in a New York subway station (Spring Street). The cross-hatched design of the wall and the bench continue in the man’s trousers, coat and hat. His individuality is lost; his personality is dominated by his environment. One of the characteristics of postmodernism is its strong opposition to the freedom-robbing part of modernism.
Fig. 2 provides a direct comment on how our institutions promote alienation. We see a cartoon where a junior-high-school girl talks to her school counselor. As a teacher I can easily relate to this cartoon: It is di=cult to teach students thermodynamics but it is more di=cult to teach them that thermodynamics is a part of their daily lives. What this girl feels about her school is representative of what many feel about their jobs or their church, or about the courts or the government or, as in Australia, about Queen Elizabeth. As a result of modernism, our institutions tend to lead lives of their own, devoid of meaningful interaction with those they are supposed to serve. To sense that, we need only think of how African-Americans and Chicanos in Los Angeles feel about the police and how you and I feel about the tax collector. Second, two illustrations to show how an understanding of nature, especially human nature, requires many points of view. Fig. 3 shows Picasso’s portrait “Weeping Woman”. The woman’s grief and tears are communicated by simultaneous front and side views. Which view is “correct?” That is a meaningless question. If the portrait were restricted to either a front view or a pro1le, we would fail to achieve the deeper understanding provided by Picasso’s portrait. Postmodernism stresses the idea that any one point of view is not necessarily superior to any other. Fig. 4 shows a closely related idea in Marcel Duchamp’s “Nude Descending Stairs” where we see a multi-view picture of a 1gure not, as in Picasso’s painting, from diJerent positions in space but from diJerent positions in time. Although not a movie, this picture is
3630
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
Fig. 3. Multidimensionality in space: Picassos’s “Weeping Woman”.
dynamic, not static. 1 It reminds us that truth is multidimensional. Postmodernism says that there is no reason to prefer one dimension over any other. Third, two illustrations to show the fuzziness and dissolution of boundaries, the continuity of phenomena. Fig. 5 shows a painting by Escher, “East and West”. At 1rst glance you see black birds Dying to the left. But as you look again, you see white birds Dowing to the right. Although we have here two migrations in opposite directions, they blend into one harmonious process. This picture may serve as an illustration of Niels Bohr’s famous remark “A deep truth is one whose opposite is also true”. The continuity of nature is also evident in Magritte’s “Carte Blanche”. In Fig. 6 we see a horse and rider in a forest; the horse does not go around or between the trees, it goes through the trees. We see here a macroscopic version of the tunneling eJect in quantum mechanics. Postmodernism stresses the idea that what we see and what we believe is not something absolute but something that depends crucially on our point of view. While this idea is not new, postmodernists want us to accept its consequences. Whereas classical philosophers recognized that we cannot know ultimate reality because it is always 1ltered by our senses, many postmodernists go further; they claim that because what our senses tell us is so strongly culture-dependent, ultimate reality is not 1 An unsympathetic critic called this picture “Explosion in a Tile Factory”.
Fig. 4. Multidimensionality in time: Duchamp’s “Nude Descending Staircase”.
Fig. 5. Dissolution of boundaries: Escher’s “East and West”.
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
3631
Fig. 7. Interdependence and simultaneity: Bryan Rogers shows that an event anywhere occurs also in Berkeley.
Fig. 6. Dissolution of boundaries: Magritte’s “Carte Blanche”.
only inaccessible but nonexistent. For scientists and engineers, this claim is deeply pessimistic but postmodernists don’t see it that way. They assert that by understanding that perceived reality is essentially no more than a set of prejudices, we are liberated, free at last from archaic illusions. The fuzziness of boundaries in science is surely familiar to chemical engineers who see daily evidence of how, for example, organic chemistry, molecular physics and biology are joined in biotechnology or how solid-state physics merges with microelectronics. But in the postmodern world, this fuzziness goes much further: chemistry, biology and engineering blend not only with themselves but also with public policy, with law and politics as, for example, in pollution, pharmacy, medicine, fuels for transportation, and processing or packaging of foods. While the concept of intersecting disciplines is not new, postmodernism stresses not only the multidimensionality of phenomena and their interaction with society but, in addition, demands that those who practice science and engineering accept the responsibilities that such interaction implies. Postmodernists focus on the ever-rising importance of inter-dependence, an idea exempli1ed by the political slogan from Hillary Clinton: “It takes a village to raise a child.” This interdependence is illustrated by a sculpture made by one of my former students, Bryan Rogers, who
Fig. 8. Modern (not postmodern) architecture: repetition (Modality) in a high-rise apartment building by Le Corbusier.
is probably the only person in the world who has a joint Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering and in Art. 2 Fig. 7 shows clocks that we 1nd in airports where time is indicated in the world’s major cities, e.g., New York, London, Tokyo, etc. The idea expressed here suggests interdependence through simultaneity: Whatever happens anywhere, also happens in Berkeley. Another aspect of postmodernism is made evident through architecture. The Enlightenment Program put emphasis on rationality and the life of reason, and that encouraged both socialism and the Protestant Ethic: economy of resources through centralized planning, e=ciency and frugality, to assure that the maximum bene1t can accrue to the maximum number. This attitude encouraged modality, i.e., e=ciency through mass production with interchangeable parts as pioneered, for example, by Henry Ford in the automobile industry where only a few automobile models are produced such that, within a particular model, the engine or any other part in one car can also be used in another. This e=ciency, based on interchangeability and repetition, is evident in the buildings designed by Le Corbusier, a prominent architect extensively imitated in the middle section of the twentieth century. As shown in Fig. 8, in these buildings any one 2 Bryan Rogers is now dean of the School of Art and Design at the University of Michigan.
3632
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
Fig. 9. Postmodern architecture: Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain.
Fig. 11. Art to illustrate the Mundane in life: pop art by Andy Warhol.
Fig. 10. Postmodern architecture: Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain.
section is identical to every other. Today these e=cient but monotonous buildings are evident in every major city, especially in those countries that are, or recently were, operating under a socialist political system. Postmodernism emphatically rejects the Le Corbusier style of architecture; postmodernism seeks to express individuality through imaginative buildings where modal repetition is displaced by components that are unique and playful, through buildings that celebrate personal freedom as opposed to external control. A striking example of postmodern architecture is the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain. Figs. 9 and 10 show two views of this museum where monotony is gone, replaced by surprise, humor and enthusiasm. Another feature of postmodernism is indicated by a changing taste in artistic expression. There are many trends in postmodern art; here I mention only one, commonly known as pop art. In recent centuries, painters gave their visions of selected scenes from life; landscapes
showing mountains, forests or the sea; children at play; dancers at the theater; peasants at work or at prayer; etc., etc. Because these visions were displayed in galleries or museums, there was an implied separation between art and life. In this tradition, life is what we “do” in our every-day activities while art is something we “do” on Sunday afternoons when we visit the Art Museum. Pop art rejects this separation and the re1ned selection of “pretty” subjects for representation; pop art is concerned with the ordinary scenes that circumscribe out lives during the week, not with those reserved for Sunday afternoons. Art should not be restricted to “nice” subjects dictated by sentimentality or religion or patriotism or conventional virtues, but should be a part of, not apart from, the mundane, the trivial, the boring that make up so much of daily existence. Fig. 11 presents a well-known example of pop art, a painting by Andy Warhol, showing shelves of Campbell-soup cans in a supermarket. Striking evidence of how postmodernism has become a part of the establishment is provided by the outrageous commercial value of this Warhol painting. I suspect that almost all chemical engineers regard Warhol’s “masterpiece” as either ridiculous or trivial; yet, the value of this painting is now somewhere between ten and a hundred million dollars. It is ironic that although postmodernism is severely critical of capitalism, the capitalist establishment has skillfully adopted some of the trappings of postmodernism as items of prestige and pro1t. The richness, diversity and inconsistency of postmodernism is indicated on the one hand, by the revolt against monotony shown by the Guggenheim Museum and, on the other, by Warhol’s suggestion that the monotony of soup cans in a supermarket merits artistic recognition.
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
3633
Fig. 13. Separation of art and science: it is a source of humor to suggest that music can describe the experience of a chemist in a laboratory. Fig. 12. Characteristics words that contrast modernism and postmodernism.
The goal of postmodernism is to question the assumptions of modernism and to transcend the excess of its technology. We can readily see the contrast between modernism and postmodernism by looking at some characteristic words shown in Fig. 12. With this background, let me now turn attention to the challenge that postmodernism makes to scientists and engineers. After that, I can 1nally turn to some thoughts on the present and future response that the postmodern world expects from chemical engineering. About 40 years have passed since publication of “The Two Cultures” by C. P. Snow. This book documented the deep division between scientists and nonscientists, characterized by an inability and sometimes unwillingness to communicate. Regrettably, the extent of this division has not decreased. To illustrate the division between scientists and nonscientists, consider the cartoon shown in Fig. 13. A song recital is in progress. As is often done, the singer explains to the audience the subject of the next song; in this case, the subject concerns the experience of a chemist in a laboratory. Why do we laugh at this cartoon? Why is it funny? We are amused by the unusual, indeed, unheard-of joining of two worlds; music and chemistry, or more precisely, music and a chemist. Music is created by composers to portray a wide variety of human experiences but, in our
bifurcated culture, music is not expected to include the experience of a chemist in a laboratory. Postmodernism is not against science but it does not give science the privileged position that it has enjoyed for at least 250 years. We see this privileged position daily in a typical newspaper or television advertisement where the product is recommended because its bene1ts have been scienti5cally demonstrated. Postmodernism seriously questions such justi1cation. In postmodern writing, several key concepts appear repeatedly; three of them are shown in Fig. 14. Each of these concepts is used by postmodernists to support their assertion that science provides only one way to comprehend the world, no better than that of many others, and that in any case, all methods for comprehending or interpreting the world are subjective and unreliable, at best well-intended but devoid of ultimate meaning and at worst, suspect, determined by an agenda of selfinterest. Regrettably, the postmodern view of science brings further separation between the scienti1c and the nonscienti1c community. We scientists and engineers operate with the deep, essentially unquestioned belief that science has a special claim, a high priority for attaining useful knowledge. Postmodernism not only denies our belief but also asserts that those who hold that belief are at best misguided or, at worst, sinister and evil.
3634
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
Fig. 15. How others see us: a cartoon following the accident that killed and injured hundreds in Bhopal, India about 15 years ago.
Fig. 14. Three concepts common in the writings of postmodern thinkers.
This separation is illustrated in the semi-humorous novel “Nice Work” by the contemporary English novelist David Lodge whose novel concerns the interaction between a middle-aged, hard-nosed engineer in industry and a young woman named Robyn, a deconstruction-oriented lecturer in literature at a British university. In the 1rst few chapters, communication between Robyn and the engineer is impossible; they belong to diJerent worlds. In an early scene, Robyn has (essentially) broken up her intimate relation with a young man, who is also a literature critic in academia. Robyn decides to teach at another university for a change of scenery. She rents a cozy apartment with the hope of establishing some new male companionship. However, Lodge tells us, she did not succeed because “All the young men in the university were either married, homosexual or scientists.” After many trials and some traumatic experiences, Robyn and the hard-nosed engineer slowly learn to understand each other. While the novel ends on an optimistic note, it clearly demonstrates the depth of misunderstanding and distrust that separates the scienti1c and humanistic communities. 3 3 Lodge’s novel also includes a superDuous brief romantic interlude between Robyn and the engineer, but this interlude is in no way essential to what the novel is intended to portray. I suspect that Lodge included it only with a hopeful eye toward Hollywood.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, my brief discussion of postmodernism (especially as indicated in Figs. 12 and 14) does not imply my unquali1ed endorsement of or agreement with what postmodernists are telling us. While the postmodern revolt against some of the excesses of modernism surely arouses our sympathy, the excesses of that revolt (especially with respect to science) are repugnant to me and, I suspect, to essentially all engineers, chemical or otherwise. But the excesses of that revolt are a reality that we cannot ignore. While they present us with a threat and a challenge, they also provide us with an opportunity to re-examine who we are and what we do. In that re-examination what truly matters is not how we see ourselves but how we are seen by others. Now let me suggest some reDections on what all this has to do with chemical engineering. To start, Fig. 15 shows a cartoon that recalls du Pont’s long-used slogan “Better Things for Better Living Through Chemistry”; du Pont, sensing changing times, abandoned this slogan about 20 years ago. This cartoon, about 15 years old, refers to the much-publicized release of a poisonous gas from a Union Carbide plant that killed or seriously injured hundreds in Bhopal, India. Similar cartoons are now appearing with reference to the recent tra=c fatalities caused by the failure of Firestone’s rubber tires. While society eagerly uses chemical products, it will not tolerate any failure. While most of the world forgives an American president his immoral behavior, it does not forgive a company president’s carelessness or lapse of judgment. Chemical engineers and chemical industry are learning to respond to the public’s outrage at both real and perceived abuses of technology. While these abuses may, at least in part, be inexcusable, much of the public’s anger follows from its disenchantment with the perceived arrogance and oppressive role of science and from its inability to understand the unavoidable element of risk in any human enterprise. Chemical engineers and chemical industry are now beginning to face this challenge but, in my view, this initial eJort is not nearly enough.
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
3635
Fig. 16. Industry supports culture: from a newspaper published by the Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (Society of German Engineers).
The spirit of postmodernism demands that applied chemical science recognize its social responsibilities; it is not su=cient to manufacture chemical products for a hungry market with optimum economic e=ciency. To remain viable, the method of manufacture and the properties of products must be consistent with the public’s expectation of respect for human values. In industry and in the universities we can see a variety of contemporary responses to these expectations. Let me show a few examples. While industrial companies have a long history of sponsoring cultural events, such sponsorship has much increased in recent years. In the lobby of a typical company headquarters we are likely to see modern paintings and sculptures, or exhibits on wildlife in Africa or on preservation of forests and wetlands in South America. A recent article in the Financial Times reported a large increase in company sponsorship of concerts, ballet performances, art exhibits at major museums, and so on. Public relations and community participation are now seen not as optional, but as an essential part of industrial enterprise. Fig. 16 shows the top part of a recent article from a newspaper published by the Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (Society of German Engineers) that emphasizes how support of culture—in particular, art—is “good business” not only because it indirectly advertises a product, and not only because it generates prestige and visibility but—and this is what is relatively new—because a typical company, especially a large company, realizes that business is not apart from but a part of culture, that there is a dis-
Fig. 17. Continuity between business and personal ethics: the Kandinsky painting illustrates joy and complexity.
solution of the boundaries between what we do at the o=ce or factory and what we do at home or at leisure. Companies have learned that the best way to attract and retain competent and loyal employees is not merely to pay good salaries but also to provide employees with a higher quality of life at work; conformity is increasingly replaced by encouraged individuality. It is now common policy in many American o=ces to abandon the conventional dress code once a week, usually Fridays, when employees may wear whatever informal clothes they like: sandals, tee shirts, short pants; (nearly) anything goes. We see here a trend analogous to replacing the buildings of Le Corbusier with the Guggenheim Museum in Spain. In the last 10 or so years, we have seen a Dood of articles and books on ethics in business. An example is given in Fig. 17. One major theme in these publications is to support the concept of continuity between industrial enterprise and public and private life, i.e., the idea that the rules that govern our family and community life should be consistent with those that govern our lives at work. It is not a coincidence that the cover of this book is a painting by Kandinsky, painted about 80 years ago. The author did not choose a painting of a factory or o=ce with
3636
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
Fig. 18. Continuity between work and home: women’s criteria for deciding where to take a job.
smiling happy workers, perhaps the kind of painting that was common 50 years ago in the Communist countries where the combination of production and socialist values was to create a worker’s paradise. No, the author chose a painting that is whimsical, playful, full of the joy of individual expression. When I asked Professor Greene why he had chosen this particular painting, he con1rmed my expectation that he liked Kandinsky’s celebration of conDicting vectors and multidimensionality, precisely the features that characterize ethics where there are no simple, universal solutions to problems concerning how human beings should relate to one another. The cover page of this book provides evidence of what cultural historians have long maintained: Art does not imitate life. Instead, life imitates art. A few months ago the San Francisco Chronicle reported a survey on the response of industrial corporations to women’s issues, shown in Fig. 18. Women judge companies with respect to their policies concerning maternal leave and released time for family needs and especially with respect to facilities for child care. A survey of this kind was highly unlikely 15 or 20 years ago. Again, we see the broadening of boundaries between home and of1ce. It is discouraging that in the listed ten best companies, chemical industry is represented very poorly. Fig. 19 shows an advertisement from a recent issue of Chemical and Engineering News, the weekly publication of the American Chemical Society. Unlike similar adver-
Fig. 19. Chemical marketing and contemporary values: an advertisement from chemical engineering news. Note the modest slogan in the lower right corner, a sharp contrast to du Pont’s slogan 20 years ago.
tisements of an earlier time, the advertised product is not some peripheral item such as a better soap for washing dishes or a better preservative for protecting a roof from sun and rain. The product is down-to-earth, potable, fresh water for a postmodern man, not a consumer but a jogger exercising to maintain his health. Especially noteworthy is the 1nal line at the right, Value beyond Chemistry, a much more modest slogan than the one du Pont used a generation ago. For a 1nal example, again from the San Francisco Chronicle, Fig. 20 illustrates the increasing social responsibility of industry. Wealthy industrialists have always practiced philanthropy but now we have a business school in a major university presenting formal instruction to business students on how to be an eJective philanthropist. The clear implication here is that the support of cultural institutions is no longer an incidental item but an integral part of a business plan. Many additional examples can be cited to show how postmodern attitudes are demanding and, in part, obtaining responses from the prevailing establishment, that is,
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
Fig. 20. Philanthropy is part of business: future business leaders take a formal course in philanthropy at Business School.
from the institutions of modernism that owe their existence to the Enlightenment Program. Certainly, many issues in postmodernism are not new; many of the demands of postmodernism do no more than reawaken old human virtues that modernism has forgotten or neglected. But postmodernism’s revival of human values is characterized by a previously absent self-con1dence and by bold assertiveness. Postmodernism is not content to soften the excesses of modernism; it also attacks the intellectual basis of modernism and thereby the authority of science and engineering. The message of postmodernism to scientists and engineers is essentially this: You’re not as smart as you think you are. Your path to truth is only one of many and, in any case, every path is corrupted by self-interest. The challenge of postmodernism to chemical engineers has two parts: 1rst, clean up your act; stop pollution and make sure your products are totally safe; conduct your business and give attention to your employees in an ethical manner with due regard for human needs and values. Advertise your products without deception.
3637
And second, temper your arrogance and conceit, communicate with the man in the street in terms he can understand; don’t lecture with condescension but show respect for those who are not like you. And don’t be so rational and serious and dull; let the humane part of life be part of your profession. 4 Both challenges are not simple but the second challenge is more di=cult than the 1rst. Although much more needs to be done, economic, political and ultimately legal pressures are already working toward reducing pollution, increasing safety and requiring truth in advertising, and toward creating more humane, family-oriented working conditions. However, economics, politics and law do not as yet play a major role in meeting the second challenge. Required here is a change of attitude, a re-evaluation of our role in society and an adjustment of priorities. Fig. 21 gives a list of some requirements for eJective chemical engineering in the postmodern world. This list is by no means complete but it is representative of what will be asked of us in the near future. No comment is needed for the 1rst three because they are already part of the conventional wisdom. But the last two merit some elaboration. There is an embarrassing lack of leadership from our top executives in the chemical and related industries with respect to industry-wide public relations. A broad, professionally conducted eJort must be made through newspapers, television and all other available media to inform the public about the role of applied chemistry in every-day life, in health, transportation, telecommunication, housing, clothing, etc., etc. The public needs information on how chemical products are made and on the tremendous eJort that chemists and chemical engineers make to achieve safe and reliable products. We need an order of magnitude increase in presenting information on how applied chemistry contributes to our standard of living and on how chemical industry contributes to the community through responsible research and investment in science and engineering. These contributions are obvious to us, but the overwhelming majority who are not 4 To illustrate the public’s view of an engineer’s cold rationality, consider this by now well-known joke concerning three men, a doctor, a lawyer and an engineer, playing golf. Progress is extremely slow because the group ahead of these three men is hardly moving. When the three men go to the golf-course’s administrator to complain, they learn that the group ahead of them consists of blind 1remen. The administrator says that a few months ago there was a terrible 1re at the golf club house; these 1remen heroically saved several trapped club members, but in their heroism, they suJered severe eye damage. As a token of gratitude, the golf club allows these 1remen to play golf free of charge whenever they wish. The doctor said, “How sad! I will at once call my colleague, a distinguished eye doctor, to give medical help to these poor 1remen”. The lawyer said, “How sad! I will at once go to court to make sure that all possible insurance and other compensation be given to these poor 1remen.” The engineer said nothing but stroked his chin in thought. Finally he said “Why can’t these 1remen play golf at night?”
3638
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
Fig. 21. Towards eJective chemical engineering in the postmodern world: a few requirements.
like us are only dimly aware of what we take for granted. The public only pays attention to us when something goes wrong. A much larger eJort must be made by our powerful and rich chemical industry to tell the public about us when, as happens 99% of the time, everything goes right. Several times I have mentioned that one feature of postmodernism is its denial of the privileged position of science as a source of knowledge. For us, this feature is naive foolishness, but it is also a threat that will not go away merely because we choose to ignore it. I have attended numerous meetings, formal and informal, concerned with the diJerences between scientists and nonscientists. In these meetings, all too often, there is little interpenetration, reminiscent of trying to mix oil and water. Numerous factors are at play here but surely one of them is fear on the part of nonscientists, and another is arrogance on the part of scientists. Our intentions are good, but more often than not, we tend to speak to those who are not like us with condescension; we seem to say “we know the truth and you do not, but trust us, we will do what is right”. This perceived attitude arouses suspicion and destroys credibility. All too often, what we say is not what our listeners hear. Those whom we try to persuade and to reassure may hear a voice similar to that of career o=cer from the British Colonial O=ce, 100 years ago, instructing the natives of Kenya or Ceylon. We only hurt ourselves when we dismiss—often with barely covered contempt—the “irrational” concerns of our critics.
We depend on these “others” as much as they depend on us. To protect science and to protect our profession, we must show modesty and sympathy when speaking to others and—more important—when listening to their heartfelt concerns. To us, these concerns may seem foolish or trivial but to those who harbor them, they hold vital signi1cance. In this dialogue with those who fear and know little about science, we are the more powerful partners in our increasingly technical world; it is “they”, not us, who are at a disadvantage. To heal the division we can aJord to be generous; we should take the initiative but in a manner that is kind, not superior. As Auden says in one of his poems: “If equal aJection cannot be Let the more loving one be me”. Describing some of the features of postmodernism to hard-headed engineers inevitably raises the question “Does all that really matter? Do developments in art, literature and philosophy have any consequences that concern me, an ordinary fellow who minds his own business trying to make a living?” In reply to that question, history gives a resounding “Yes”. Ideas have consequences. In the United States, the federal constitution, the document that determines all law and indirectly, all social and economic institutions, is a direct consequence of ideas from philosophers like Locke and Montesquieu who lived about one or two generations before the Constitution was adopted in 1789. The Communist Soviet Union was a direct consequence of the writings of Karl Marx who died about 40 years before the Russian Revolution of 1917. In 1940, Bertrand Russell was denied a visiting professorship at City College in New York because of his heretical writings on trial marriage. Twenty years later, cohabitation became a norm at Harvard and Berkeley and soon thereafter it became socially acceptable in most parts of the United States and Western Europe. Today, because, communication is so much faster, there is much less delay between new ideas and their reduction to practice. My Berkeley colleagues in the Department of Economics tell me that in the 20th century the most inDuential book on economics was “General Theory” by John Maynard Keynes. His ideas about national economic policy, especially with regard to di1cit 1nancing, have not only inDuenced but, in eJect, determined the 1scal policies of most Western countries for about two generations. On the last page of his book, Keynes writes: The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual inDuences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
J. M. Prausnitz / Chemical Engineering Science 56 (2001) 3627–3639
Is Postmodernism as I have sketched it here, a signi1cant trend or a mere Ductuation? Philosophers and social scientists disagree; we don’t know. Will it be with us in the long run? When Keynes was asked a similar question about 50 years ago, he gave the marvelous answer “In the long run, we’ll all be dead”. But there is something we do know: change is always around us and he, who will not change, dies. Art and literature are saturated with that theme; we need only think of the legendary Arabian bird, the aged Phoenix, who is consumed by 1re only to rise with youthful vigor from his own ashes. In American politics it has become fashionable to use the word “reinvent”; in recent elections, candidates for political o=ce repeatedly talked about the need to reinvent government and for the man who may be the next US president, the word “reinvent” is an essential part of his well-cultivated public image. 5 Chemical Engineering also needs to be reinvented if it is to survive. Many chemical engineers have discussed that need, indicating that chemical engineers must participate more in those new technologies that go beyond our traditional technical domain. All of us endorse this need. But my claim is that, in addition, we need also to respond to the changing social climate. Because our unavoidable task is to serve society, our attitudes and our activities need to adjust to what a changing society expects and increasingly demands, even if these expectations and demands are not always consistent with our traditional beliefs. For about 100 years chemical engineering has had the loyal support and applause of the public. As the public becomes increasingly critical, that support is eroding. Encouraged by the ideas of postmodernism, the applause is fading, replaced by mistrust and accusations.
5 This lecture was given on November 7, election day in the United States.
3639
In the intellectual history of the world, postmodernism may be a Ductuation but there exists strong evidence to believe that it will not go away quickly. Finally, it is well known that any claim or suggestion, no matter how strange or absurd, can be supported by a quotation from the Bible. I have found one that in a rough way can summarize what I have tried to say about reinventing chemical engineering to adjust to the postmodern world. The quotation is from Ezekiel where the prophet tells the Hebrew people that they must reform lest they die. Here is his message: I will give them a new heart and put a new spirit with them. I will take away the heart of stone and give them a heart of Desh. Tonight, it was my task to talk to you for about one hour, and it was your task to try to stay awake for about one hour. I can only hope that we all 1nished at the same time. Acknowledgements For advice on postmodernism, the author is grateful to the following Berkeley colleagues: Alan Dundes (Anthropology), John Searle (Philosophy), Judith Butler (Rhetoric), Robert Post (Law), Margaretta Lovell (Art History), Mark Bevir (Political Science) and David Hollinger (History).
