Let Freeness Ring: The Canadian Standard Freeness Tester as Hegemonic Engine

Spontaneous Generations 4 (1):61-70 (2010)
In important respects measurement practices underlay both the Second Scientific Revolution and the Second Industrial Revolution. Such practices, using increasingly accurate and precise instruments, both turned laboratories into factories for the production of exact measurement and also made factories the sites of laboratory-type and laboratory-quality measurement. Those who had learnt the protocols of precise, instrumentational measurement in university science and engineering classrooms, used those instruments and their skills to monitor and control industrial production, exchange technical data within and among firms and formulate and implement technical standardization in industry. That these instruments measured not natural phenomena but technological ones made them no different in kind from what are more conventionally regarded as scientific instruments. Some indeed were simply instruments developed for scientific investigation and adapted for industrial use while others were created specifically for particular industrial applications. But more than the purely technical was going on in the use of those instruments. In addition to their function of producing knowledge they were also, in industrial production, instruments of hegemony – hegemony which, as Gramsci reminds us, begins in the factory. Among the lesser known of these devices is the freeness tester, used in production to control the manufacture of pulp and also in industrial research laboratories for the investigation of the pulping process. The Canadian Standard Freeness Tester (CSFT), developed at a Canadian government research facility on the campus of McGill University in the 1920s, quickly became a standard instrument in the pulp mills of North America and gained wide acceptance in other countries; it remains in use to this day. An understanding of its creation and function can provide a useful case study of the general observations discussed above
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.4245/sponge.v4i1.11331
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 22,585
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Gerhard Jäger (2004). Residuation, Structural Rules and Context Freeness. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (1):47-59.
Joseph Heath (2004). Dworkin’s Auction. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (3):313-335.
Raimon Elgueta (1999). Freeness in Classes Without Equality. Journal of Symbolic Logic 64 (3):1159-1194.
Fairouz Kamareddine (1992). Λ-Terms, Logic, Determiners and Quantifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1 (1):79-103.
Geoffrey K. Pullum & Kyle Rawlins (2007). Argument or No Argument? Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (2):277 - 287.
Merrill Ring (1973). Descartes' Intentions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 3 (1):27 - 49.
Roy Sorensen (2000). Moore's Problem with Iterated Belief. Philosophical Quarterly 50 (198):28-43.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

4 ( #594,986 of 1,938,583 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #452,035 of 1,938,583 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.