We rely on others to inform us, but we still cannot be taught, and must decide the truths for ourselves. We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed now in universities, looking uncomfortably to the World we inherit. The question “Who runs things?” is a typically Second Wave question. For until the industrial revolution there was little reason to ask it. Whether ruled by kinds of shamans, warlords, sun gods, or saints, people were seldom in doubt as to who held power over them. The ragged peasant, looking up from the fields, saw the palace or monastery looming in splendor on the horizon. One needed no political scientist or newspaper pundit to sole the riddle of power. Everyone knew who was in charge. Wherever the Second Wave swept in, however, a new kind of power emerged, diffused and faceless. Those in power became the anonymous “they.” Who were “they”? Industrialism, as we have seen, broke society into thousands of interlocking parts—factories, churches, schools, trade unions, prisons, hospitals, and the like. It broke the line of command between church, state, and individual. It fractured knowledge into specialize discipline. It dissembled jobs into fragments. It divided families into smaller units. It doing so, it shattered community life and culture. Somebody had to put things back together in a different form. This need gave rise to many new kinds of specialists whose basic task was integration. Calling themselves executives or administrators, commissars, coordinators, presidents, vice-presidents, bureaucrats, or managers, they cropped up in every business, in every government, and at every level of society. And they proved indispensable. They were the integrators. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19
They defined roles and allocated jobs. They decided who got what rewards. They made plans, set criteria, and gave or withheld credentials. They linked production, distribution, transport, and communications. They set the rules under which organizations interacted. Essentially, they fitted the pieces of society together. Without them the Second Wave system could never have run. Karl Marx, in the mid-nineteenth century, thought that whoever owned the tools and technology—the “means of production”—would control society. He argued that, because work was interdependent, workers could disrupt production and seize the tools from their bosses. Once they owned the tools, they would rule society. Yet history played a trick on them. For the very same interdependency gave even greater leverage to a new group—those who orchestrated or integrated the system. In the end it was neither the owners nor the workers who came to power. In both capitalist and socialists nations, it was the integrators who rose to the op. It was not ownership of the “means of production” that gave power. It was control of the “means of integration.” Let us see what that has meant. In business the earliest integrators were the factory proprietors, the business entrepreneurs, the mill owner and ironmasters. The owner and a few assistants were usually able to coordinate the labour of a large number of unskilled “hands” and to integrate the firm into the larger economy. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19
Since, in that period, owner and integrator were one and the same, it is not surprising that Dr. Marx confused the two and laid so heavy an emphasis on ownership. As production grew more complex, however, and the division of labour more specialized, business witnessed an incredible proliferation of executives and experts who came between the boss and his workers. Paperwork mushroomed. Soon in the larger firms no individual, including the owner or dominant shareholder, could even begin to understand the whole operation. The owner’s decisions were shaped, and ultimately controlled, by the specialists brought in to coordinate the system. Thus a new executive elite arose whose power rested no longer on ownership but rather on control of the integration process. As the manager grew in power, the stockholder grew less important. As companies grew bigger, family owners sold out to larger and larger groups of dispersed shareholders, few of whom knew anything about the actual operations of the business. Increasingly, shareholders had to rely on hired managers not merely to run the day-to-day affairs of the company but even to set its long-range goals and strategies. Boards of directors, theoretically representing the owners, were themselves increasingly remote and ill-informed about the operations they were supposed to direct. And as more and more private investment was made not by individuals but indirectly through institutions like pension funds, mutual funds, and the trust departments of banks, the actual “owners” of industry were still further removed from control. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19
The new power of the integrators was, perhaps, most clearly expressed by W. Michael Blumenhal, former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. Before entering government Mr. Blumenthal headed the Bendix Corporation. Once asked if he would some day like to own Bendix, Mr. Blumenthal replied: “It’s not ownership that counts—it’s control. And as Chief Executive that is what I’ve got! We have a shareholders’ meeting next week, and I’ve got ninety-seven percent of the vote. I only own eight thousand shares. Control is what’s important to me….To have the control over this large animal and to use it in a constructive way, that is what I want, rather than doing silly things that others want me to do.” Business policies were thus increasingly fixed by the hired managers of the firm or by money managers placing other people’s money, but in neither case by the actual owners, let alone by the workers. The integrators took charge. All this had certain parallels in the socialist nations. As early as 1921 Dr. Lenin felt called upon to denounce his own Soviet bureaucracy. Leon Trotsky, in exile by 1930, charged that there were already five to six million managers in a class that “does not engage directly in productive labour, but administers, orders, commands, pardons and punishes.” The means of production might belong to the state, he charged, “But the state… ‘belongs’ to the bureaucracy.” In the 1950’s Milovan Djilas, in The New Class, attacked the growing power of the managerial elites in Yugoslavia. #RandolphHarris 4 of 19
Josip Broz Tito, who imprisoned Mr. Djilas, himself complained about “technocracy, bureaucracy, the class enemy.” And fear of managerialism was the central theme in Mr. Mao’s China. Mr. Mao, leading the World’s biggest First Wave nation, repeatedly warned against the rise of managerial elites and saw this as a dangerous concomitant of traditional industrialism. Under socialism as well as capitalism, therefore, the integrators took effective power. For without them the parts of the system could not work together. The “machine” would not run. Integrating a single business, or even a whole industry, was only a small part of what had to be done. Modern industrial society, as we have seen, developed a host of organizations, from labour unions and trade associations to churches, school, health clinics, and recreational groups, all of which had to work within a framework of predictable rules. Laws were needed. Above all, the info-sphere, socio-sphere, and techno-sphere had to be brought into alignment with one another. Out of this driving need for the integration of Second Wave civilization came the biggest coordinator of all—the integrational engine of the system: big government. It is the system’s hunger for integration that explains the relentless rise of big government in every Second Wave society. #RandolphHarris 5 of 19
Again and again political demagogues arose to call for smaller government. Yet, once in office, they very same leaders expanded rather then contracted the size of government. This contradiction between rhetoric and real life becomes understandable the moment we recognize that the transcendent aim of all Second Wave governments has been to construct and maintain industrial civilization. Against this commitment, all lesser differences faded. Parties and politicians might squabble over other issues, but on this they were in tacit agreement. And big government was part of their unspoken program regardless of the tune they snag, because industrial societies depend on government to preform essential integrational tasks. In the words of political columnist Clayton Fritchey, the United State of America’s federal government never ceased to grow, even under three recent Republican administrations, “for the simple reason that not even Houdini could dismantle it without serious and harmful consequences.” Free marketeers have argued that governments interfere with business. However, left to private enterprise alone, industrialization would have come much more slowly—if, indeed, it could have come at all. Governments quickened the development of the railroad. They built harbours, roads, canals, and highways. They operated postal services and build or regulated telegraph, telephone, and broadcast systems. They wrote commercial codes and standardized markets. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19
Governments applied foreign policy pressures and tariffs to assist industry. They drove farmers off the land and into the industrial labour supply. They subsidized energy and advanced technology, often through military channels. At a thousand levels, governments assumed the integrative tasks that others could not, or would not, perform. For government was the great accelerator. Because of its coercive power and tax revenues, it could do things that private enterprise could not afford to undertake. Government could “hot up” the industrialization process by stepping in to fill emerging gaps in the system—before it became possible or profitable for private companies to do so. Governments could perform “anticipatory integration.” By setting up mass education systems, governments not only helped to machine youngsters for their future roles in the industrial work force (hence, in effect, subsidizing industry) but also simultaneously encouraged the spread of the nuclear family form. By relieving the family of educational and other traditional functions, governments accelerated the adaptation of family structure to the needs of the factory system. At many different levels, therefore, governments orchestrated the complexity of Second Wave civilization. Not surprisingly, as integration grew in importance both the substance and style of government changed. Presidents and prime ministers, for example, came to see themselves primarily as managers rather than as creative social and political leaders. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19
In personality and manner, they became almost interchangeable with the men who ran the large companies and production enterprises. While offering the obligatory lip service to democracy and social justice, the Nixons, Carters, Thatchers, Brezhnevs, Giscards, and Ohiras of the industrial World rode into office by promising little more than efficient management. These technicians of power were themselves organized into hierarchies of elites and sub-elites. Every industry and branch of government soon gave birth to its own establishment, its own powerful “They.” Sports…religion…education…each had its own pyramid of power. A science establishment, a defense establishment, a cultural establishment sprang up. Power in Second Wave civilization was parceled out to scores, hundreds, even thousands of such specialized elites. In turn, these specialized elites were themselves integrated by generalist elites whose membership cut across all the specializations. For example, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe the Communist party had members in every field from aviation to music and steel manufacture. Communist party members served as a crucial grapevine carrying messages from one sub-elite to another. Because it has access to all information, it has enormous power to regulate the specialist sub-elites. In the capitalist countries, leading business people and lawyers, serving on civic committees or boards, performed similar functions in a less formal way. What we see, therefore, in all Second Wave nations are specialized groups of integrators, bureaucrats, or executives, themselves integrated by generalist integrators. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19
A yet a higher level, integration was imposed by the “super-elites” in charge of investment allocation. Whether in finance or industry, in the Pentagon or in the Russian planning bureaucracy, those who made the major investment allocations in industrial society set the limits within which the integrators themselves were compelled to function. Once a truly large-scale investment decision had been made, whether in Minneapolis or Moscow, it limited future options. Given a scarcity of resources, one could not casually tear out Bessemer furnaces or cracking plants or assembly lines until their cost had been amortized. Once in place, therefore, this capital stock fixed the parameters within which future managers or integrators were confined. These groups of faceless decision-makers, controlling the levers of investment, formed the super-elite in all industrial societies. In every Second Wave society, consequently, a parallel architecture of elites sprang up. And—with local variation—this hidden hierarchy of power was born again after every crisis or political upheaval. Names, slogans, party labels, and candidates might change; revolutions might come and go. New faces might appear behind the big mahogany desks. However, the basic architecture of power remained. Time and again during the past three hundred and seventy years, in one country after another, rebels and reformers have attempted to storm the walls of power, to build a new society based on social justice and political equality. Temporarily, such movements have seized the emotions of millions with promises of freedom. Revolutionists have even managed, now and then, to topple a regime. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19
Yet each time the ultimate outcomes was the same. Every time the rebels re-created, under their own flag, a similar structure of sub-elites, elites, and super-elites. For this integrational structure and the technicians of power who ruled it were as necessary to Second Wave civilization as factories, fossil fuels, or nuclear families. Industrialism and the full democracy it promised were, in fact, in compatible. Industrial nations could be forced, through revolutionary action or otherwise, to move back and forth across the spectrum from free market o centrally planned. They could go from capitalist to socialist and vice versa. However, like the much-cited leopard, they could not change their sports. They could not function without a powerful hierarchy of integrator. Today, as the Third Wave of change is being implemented in this fortress of managerial power, the first fleeting cracks have appeared in the power system. Demands for participation in management, for shared decision-making, for worker, consumer, and citizen, and for anticipatory democracy are welling up in nation after nation. New ways of organizing along less hierarchical and more ad-hocratic lines are springing up in the most advanced industries. Pressures for decentralization of power intensify. And managers become more and more dependent upon information from below. Elites themselves, therefore, are becoming less permanent and secure. All these were merely early warnings—indicators of the upheaval we are experiencing in the political systems. The Third Wave, already has been battering at these industrial structures, opening fantastic opportunities for social and political renovation. In these times, startling new institutions are replacing our unworkable, oppressive, and obsolete integrational structures. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19
It is not just a matter of getting comfortable in the role we have as people with special responsibilities, so far as our personal adequacies are concerned, but rather of accepting the reality of our role, even though we know our inadequacies. Housing styles reflect the social values of particular eras. The planned suburbs of the nineteenth century had been deigned for the affluent railroad commuter. However, by the turn of the century, the elaborate Victorian social customs and housing styles had gone “out of fashion” (became unaffordable). By World War I, the once popular Victorian- and Queen-Anne-style homes, Americana places of great worth were too expensive to recreate because of machines manufacturing replacing human labour and the first taxes were enacted in 1913. Not only that, but the gold rush and force free labour had come to an end, so people were not as affluent and could not afford to build such grand homes. Therefore, the ornateness and flourishes of the late-nineteenth century were supplanted by simpler and more efficient architectural designs. The prototype of this modern form would be the suburban bungalow design. The informality and more relaxed nature of this design could be seen immediately upon entering the front door. The elaborate entrance halls and parlors of the Victorian era were replaced by a simple doorway opening immediately into a less-formal general-purpose living room. Bungalows were built not for the affluent, but for the comfortable middle-class family. #RandolphHarris 11 of 19
Early in the twentieth century many new suburbs sprang up filled with utilitarian bungalow and other frame models. Rather than being individually designed, these homes were often mass-produced from simple sets of plans. Homes would be individualized by small variations n ornamentation or material. Thus, first the streetcar and then the automobile opened up suburbia as a place of residence for the comfortable middle class. Such simple, moderate-priced, and informal style homes were needed to house this growing suburban population. Most common among these budget-friendly, less exotic designs were the American Foursquare and the bungalow, but there is still a lot to appreciate. The foursquare, as its name suggests, was a basic four-sided, cubed-shape model sometimes knows as the box, the cube, or the classic box. It was an efficient two-and-one-half story high model set on a raised basement with a wide porch across the front reached by raised steps. The foursquare had its two stories caped by a low pyramidal roof containing generally a front, and sometimes a side, dormer. Inside was often incorporated handcrafted “honest” woodwork (unless purchased from a mail-order catalog. The rooms were generally of equal size, wit the stairwell on the side wall near the front door. The foursquare was a solid and stable, in unexcited, style. The basement generally contained a large natural convection furnace or boiler. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19
The bungalow-style homes, by contrast, looked more “suburban” and was more versatile, permitting greater variation in the arrangement of interior space. External on this house is either single-story or second story built into a sloping roof (usually with dormer windows), and may be surrounded by wide verandas. The external ornamentation could give the bungalow a low colonial, shingle, Tudor, or even Spanish appearance. Often, essentially identical homes on the same street were given different external styles. The bungalow house was relatively little known in 1900s, but by World War I it had become common in the outer reaches of the cities and the developing middle-class suburbs. The bungalow was very much an American creation, combining practicality, economy, and comfort. Bungalows, as noted, also suggested a more informal life-style than the earlier Victorian housing. Over time the term “bungalow” became virtually a generic name for any smaller, cozy, and comfortable home. While Victorian homes had parlors, libraries, and sitting rooms, the bungalows were more modest and utilitarian. Large entrance halls and vestibules were replaced with front doors that entered directly into the living space. In the bungalow, “a pleasant living room with a cozy fireplace, built in bookcases, and an cupboard or two would serve the combined functions of a library, parlor, and sitting room. The bungalow cottage, most often simply called a bungalow, characteristically had a porch, living room, dining room, and kitchen downstairs and three bedrooms and bathrooms upstairs. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19
In the bungalow, the front upstairs windows typically were in a dormer extending out from the front roof. The style had limited space but used it very effectively. There were numerous regional variations of the standard bungalow. California bungalows often had only one floor, and in Los Angeles the term “bungalow” came to be used for any low suburban house. In the Midwest the “Chicago bungalows” that covered much of that city’s outlying northerwest suburbs were uniformly single storied (with a room that could be finished upstairs), and all were brick faced. Bungalow homes were well suited for starter homes (some selected them as forever homes) insofar as they were reasonably priced, and they seemed to exude a mood of solid middle-class comfort. For many new families, they suggested upward mobility. Suburban bungalows were efficiently laid out and cold easily be managed by a middle-class housewife without the servants that had been part of the large Victorian houses. Bungalows, many of which are still occupied today, substituted technology for hand power. Bungalows had all the modern convenience of central heating, water heaters, indoor plumbing, and gas ovens and stoves. Bungalows also invariably had residential electric service. This made them very up-to-date residence. Electricity, for example was by no means universally found in homes at the time of World War I. As of 1917 only one-quarter (24.3 percent) of all homes in the United States of America were electrified. Even many city homes were still lit by gas or, if the family was poor, by kerosene. Following the war electric service quickly became the norm. By 1920 the proportion of homes having electric service had jumped to almost half (47.7 percent), and by 1930 it was 85 percent. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19
The northwest side of Chicago still has miles and miles of virtually identical well-maintained “Chicago bungalows” built in the 1920s. The Chicago bungalows had an unfinished second floor which was reached by entering from the kitchen. Over the years many owners converted the second floors into children’s bedrooms. Suburban bungalows were smaller than earlier Victorian homes, partially because of smaller families and no live-in servants. However, most important in reducing floors space were he rising construction costs of building “modern” homes with built-in central heating, indoor plumbing, and electric sockets for plugging in lamps and modern labor-saving devices such as electric Hoover vacuum cleaners. In the east and Midwest, bungalows commonly had concrete-floored basements with washtubs having running hot and cold water. This was a major advance. Some earlier houses had not had semifinished basements entered from the house, but dirt-floored cellars entered by external lift-up cellar doors. Also, these basements differed from those of earlier years in that they were designed not as much for storage as to be electrically lighted and centrally heated places where the new electric washing machine with ringer could be kept, where the washed clothes could be hung to dry in winter, and where the husband could have a workroom. Following World War II, it became the fad for homeowners to enclose a “family room” in the basement. Often the new television set would be kept in this family room. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19
Among the “modern” features in some bungalows were faux fireplaces with gas-fired logs. These went out of fashion in the 1940s, and many of the gas systems were disconnected for safety reasons. Ironically, as of the 1900s gas-fired logs are again in style among affluent baby boomers who want a fireplace but do not want the bother of real wood. However, some still enjoy the scent of a burning log in the winter as it is nostalgic of wonderful times. The post-World War housing boom is usually blamed for identical housing styles, but the suburban bungalow had perfected the art of mass-producing suburban homes far before the postwar look-alike subdivisions. Even complete homes with all building material included could be purchased from catalogs. The most long-lived of the mail-order builders was the Aladdin Company, but Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward also were major sellers of prefabricated bungalows. Between 1908 and 1937, Sears sold roughly 100,000 mail-order houses, primarily in the Midwest and the East. Sears, in their catalog, offered several prefabricated homes and all the precut parts. Everything from plans to lumber to doors to fixtures was dropped off at the nearest railway station. Both Sears, Roebuck and Montgomery Ward also pushed appliances and furniture to those purchasing homes, figuring that those who were buying a new house were excellent customers for purchasing household goods. The retailer thus not only sold the home but everything that wen into it. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19
Sears did not leave the mail-order business until 1937, when the Depression forced them out. Sears had made the mistake of not only selling the homes, but also financing them. Sears made too many installment loans to buyers who lost their jobs and thus could not pay their mortgages. “Train children in the right way, and when old they will not stray,” reports Proverbs 22.6. Everyone believes it: by instruction, by discipline, and by example parents shape their children. To be convinced, most of us need look no further than our families. We see ourselves reacting to situations much as our mothers or fathers did. We hear their admonitions echoing in our minds. We relish their approval. We carry forward many of their values. And we see ourselves not only reaching backward into our children, chips off ourselves. Countless research studies seem to confirm the potency of parenting. The extremes of parenting provide the clearest evidence: the abused children who later become abusive, the unloved who become unloving. Orphanage-reared infants who are given minimal custodial care—ample food and a warm bed, but not much else—often become withdrawn, frightened, even speech. By contrast, children who develop an optimistic self-image and a happy, self-reliant manner tend to have been reared by caring parents who are neither permissive nor autocratic, parents who maintain firm standards without depriving their children of a sense of control over their own lives. In many ways we can see the parent in the child. By ten mothers of age, our babbling mirrors the sounds ad intonations of our parents’ language. In childhood, our attitudes, our play, and our ambitions usually look suspiciously like those of our same-gender parent. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19
As adolescents, most of us still express the social, political, and religious views of our parents; the generation gap typically involves nothing more than difference in the strength with which we and our parents hold our shared values. So we know both from experience and from the accumulating evidence the parental power that was understood by the writer of Proverbs. How one trains up a child affects how the child relates, talks, dresses, thinks, and believes. Our assumptions about the power of positive parenting lead us to credit parents for their children’s achievements and blame them for their shortcoming. We may think about how we would have handled that troubled child—surely with better results. Some have therefore sought to hold parents responsible for their children’s criminal activities. Likewise, parents take personal pride in their children’s successes and feel guilt over their failures. Parents accept congratulations for the child who is elected class president and feel ashamed by the child who repeatedly is called to the principal’s office. Parents second-guess themselves: Where did we go wrong with him? How should we have handled her? It all makes perfect sense: if parents from children as a potter molds clay, then parents can indeed be praised for their children’s virtues and blamed for their children’s vices. Given our readiness to praise or blame, to feel pride or shame, we had best also to understand the limits of parental influence. For the accumulating evidence further testifies to the ways in which children are shaped by forces over which parents have little control. Once such force lies hidden within our genes, the architectural codes directing biochemical events that, down the line, design our bodies and influence our behaviours. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19
By selective breeding of animals, by comparing the similarity of genetically identical twins with that of fraternal twins, and by asking whether adopted children more closely resemble their biological or adoptive parents, psychologist are discovering how our heredity forms us. There is religion in everything around us, a calm and holy religion in the unbreathing things in Nature. It is a meek and blessed influence, stealing in as it were unaware upon the hear; it comes quickly, and without excitement; it has no terror, no gloom; it does not rouse up the passions; I is untrammelled by creeds…it is written on the arched sky; it looks out from every star; it is on the sailing could and in the invisible wind; it is among the hills and valleys of the Earth where the shrubless mountain-top pierces the thin atmosphere of eternal winter, or where the mighty forest fluctuates before the strong wind, with its dark waves of green foliage; it spreads out like a legible language upon the broad face of an unsleeping ocean; it is the poetry of Nature; it is that which uplifts the spirit within us….and which opens to our imagination a World of spiritual beauty and holiness. Our Father, our King, do Thou soon make manifest to us the glory of Thy kingdom; please reveal Thyself and establish Thy exalted rule over us in the sight of all living. Assemble our scattered brethren from among that nations, and please gather our dispersed from the ends of the Earth. Please lead us with joyous song unto America Thy city, and with everlasting joy unto the United States of America, the home of Thy Sanctuary, where our forefather prepared unto Thee daily offerings. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19 We rely on others to inform us, but we still cannot be taught, and must de
Plumas Ranch offers three distinct communities to choose from: Riverside, Meadows, and Bluffs. Home sizes range from 1,740 to over 3,400 square feet.
These spacious floorplan, thoughtfully designed to enhance individual living spaces. Plus, take indoor/outdoor living to a whole new level with accessibility from both the dining room and great room, and an abundance of patio/deck options, included extended and covered patios/decks.
Room options include: a pass through pantry from the kitchen to the flex space, bedroom 5 in lieu of loft and upto three and one half bathrooms, and three-car garages available. Like all Cresleigh floorplans, their layouts are creative, versatile, and envisioned to maximize every available foot of space. https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-plumas-ranch/
Randolph Harris II International 