The Devil in Babylon: Fear of Progress and the Birth of Modern Life (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: The Devil in Babylon: Fear of Progress and the Birth of Modern Life Keith Walden The Devil in Babylon: Fear of Progress and the Birth of Modern Life. Allan Levine. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2005. Pp. 436, illus. $36.99 Had I not agreed to review this book, I probably would have put it down after reading two or three chapters because it was not saying anything new. Levine is not writing for me, but for those who are not familiar with the social and cultural history of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, this is a sprightly introduction, focusing mainly on American experiences, but also drawing on British and Canadian ones as well. In chapters on immigration, women's suffrage, scientific ideas (particularly eugenics and evolution), the Red scare, Prohibition, technology, sexuality and leisure, and Hollywood, Levine outlines some of the major sources of anxiety that shaped the modern era. Three sub-themes run through most of the sections: attention to Winnipeg personalities and incidents to provide the Canadian perspective; the contributions of Jews in creating modern life; and the extent of anti-Semitism in fuelling fears about modernity. Within each of the chapters, short biographies of representative figures and potted accounts of well-known events, like the Winnipeg General Strike, the Scopes 'Monkey' trial, and the Fatty Arbuckle scandal, are used frequently to bring the period to life. This approach provides dramatic and human interest, but contributes to the impression that this is a survey of well-travelled ground, plotted with traditional instruments. It also means the perspective is highly selective. There is a lot about Henry Ford and the automobile, for example, but nothing about Edison and electricity. The Ku Klux Klan is mentioned in passing, but there is no extended discussion of it – a surprising omission, considering [End Page 343] the richness of the secondary sources about it and how clearly it was inspired by cultural anxiety. There is breadth here, to be sure, but not much depth. Even on the breadth side of the equation, the emphasis on fear of progress sometimes seems unbalanced, particularly in the Hollywood chapter, which deals mainly with efforts to censor the movies. The millions of North Americans who flocked to theatres weekly in the early twentieth century could not have been too worried about succumbing to celluloid corruption. A number of things about Levine's interpretation of modernity can be questioned. Was immigration the central springboard to modernity, as he seems to suggest? What about technological development or more efficient forms of capitalist organization? Was the automobile the key technological innovation? What about improvements in steel production or the spread of electrical energy? No doubt many readers will quibble about the work's omissions and biases, but too much complaining is beside the point. The book is not meant to be a comprehensive review of the period, based on exhaustive research. It is an introduction for general readers, and as such, does a commendable job. Levine is an engaging writer, with a keen sense of the boredom threshold of his audience. He has a sharp eye for interesting material and, despite my carping, is a talented historian. In particular, he is deft at pulling revealing quotations from his primary sources; those who have to write introductory lectures on these subjects may profit from a quick perusal of the relevant sections. I may not read them all, but I hope Allan Levine continues to write this sort of book and that he gets rich from the royalties. Keith Walden Trent University Copyright © 2006 University of Toronto Press
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".