Willem de Vlaming, January 2026
According to Lewis Mumford, Homo sapiens is not defined primarily by tool-making or technical ingenuity, but by the capacity for symbolic, social, and moral life that sustains and enlarges living communities. Homo sapiens is the symbol-creating, community-forming, morally reflective being whose technologies are secondary expressions of a deeper biological and cultural commitment to life.
According to Lewis Mumford, **Homo sapiens is not defined primarily by tool-making or technical ingenuity**, but by **the capacity for symbolic, social, and moral life that sustains and enlarges living communities**.
He reframes the definition along several tightly connected dimensions:
> "Man the symbol-maker", not “man the maker”, the decisive human trait is symbolic thought: Language, Myth, Ritual, Art, Shared meaning across generations. Tools amplify human power, but symbols create human worlds. The first great human inventions were not tools, but language, social order, and ritual.
> Biological and social cooperation. Humans survived because of: prolonged infancy, caregiving and nurture, cooperative social bonds, division of roles within the group.
> The primacy of life over technique. Tools are means, not ends --- serving organic, social, and ethical needs; Human intelligence is evaluative and moral, not merely instrumental. A society that reverses this order — letting technique dominate life — ceases to be fully human.
> Moral imagination and self-limitation: ethical judgment, self-restraint, reflection on consequences, responsibility for future generations. Power without moral imagination leads directly to the megamachine.
> Homo sapiens as “the life-keeper”. Humans are: life-preserving rather than power-maximizing; world-interpreting rather than world-dominating, meaning-creating rather than machine-perfecting.
Some complementary visions on the essence of Homo Sapiens, can be synthesised into:
Homo Sapiens is a symbol-creating, cooperative, morally reflective, imaginative, and relational being whose technologies are secondary expressions of a deeper commitment to meaning, care, and life within a shared world.
— ⓦ —
The essence of Lewis Mumford’s The Myth of the Machine is a warning about how modern civilization has come to serve technological systems rather than human values, mistaking mechanical power, efficiency, and control for progress.
Mumford argues that modern society worships technological power as destiny, creating vast social “megamachines” that sacrifice human freedom, meaning, and life itself in the name of efficiency and control
Technology becomes a “myth,” not just a tool
Mumford argues that machines are no longer neutral instruments. Society has built a myth around technology — the belief that whatever is technologically possible is inherently good, necessary, or inevitable. This myth hides human choice and moral responsibility behind claims of “progress” and “efficiency.” The Megamachines Pentagon of Power is defined by: Pecunia, Power, Property, Publicity, Progress. Pecunia funds Power. Power protects Property > Property concentrates Pecunia > Publicity legitimizes all three > Progress justifies their expansion into the future. This creates a closed feedback loop.
The Pentagon of Power explains how modern megamachines sustain themselves by converting money, authority, ownership, ideology, and technological progress into a mutually reinforcing system that subordinates life to control.
Mumford's most famous concept is the “megamachine". Not a physical machine, but a social organization made of humans functioning like machine parts. Examples include ancient empires, modern bureaucracies, militaries, and technocracies. The megamachine prioritizes power, expansion, control, and quantification over life, creativity, and autonomy. People become components, procedures replace judgment, and obedience replaces ethical reflection. Mumford traces the megamachine back to early civilizations, where massive projects (pyramids, armies) required rigid hierarchy, surveillance, and forced coordination. This established a long tradition of authoritarian technics, where technical success justified human sacrifice. Modern technology didn’t invent this logic — it perfected it.
Mumford distinguishes between technics and life:
> Life-centered technics: technologies that enhance human flourishing, creativity, and community.
> Authoritarian technics: technologies that demand conformity, scale, and centralized control.
The myth of the machine occurs when society assumes the second is inevitable and superior. Under the megamachine:
> Violence becomes abstract (e.g., industrial warfare, nuclear weapons).
> Responsibility is fragmented (“I just followed the system”).
> Ethical judgment is replaced by technical calculation.
Efficiency replaces meaning.
Mumford rejects technological determinism. He insists that humans (should) choose which technologies to develop and how to use them. For Mumford the idea that “you can’t stop progress” is itself part of the myth. Progress without values is not progress at all.
His central warning is that civilization risks becoming a perfectly functioning machine that no longer serves life. Unless societies reclaim human purpose, moral limits, and democratic control, technology will dominate rather than liberate.
⸻ ⓦ ⸻
Lewis Mumford and Michel Foucault approach power from different angles, but they converge strikingly on how modern systems discipline, normalize, and dehumanize human life — often without overt coercion. Their connection becomes clear if you align Mumford’s megamachine with Foucault’s power/knowledge. Mumford diagnoses the civilizational danger of technological domination; Foucault explains the micro-mechanics by which such domination actually operates. Together, they reveal how modern power hides behind rationality, efficiency, and care for life—while quietly reorganizing humans as manageable components.
Megamachine ↔ Disciplinary Power
Mumford sees the "megamachine" as a vast socio-technical system in which humans function as interchangeable parts. For Foucault: "disciplinary power" (prisons, schools, factories, hospitals) produces “docile bodies” through surveillance, routines, and normalization. Both describe power that operates through organization rather than force. Control is embedded in systems, procedures, norms and language, not just rulers. Mumford criticizes technical rationality — efficiency, calculation, quantification — as masquerading as neutrality. Foucault shows how knowledge systems (statistics, medicine, criminology, psychiatry) **create the realities they claim to describe. What appears as objective, scientific, or technical is actually a mechanism of power that defines what is normal, productive, sane, or useful.
According to Mumford authoritarian technics subordinate life to systems of control, production, and expansion. For Foucault biopower governs populations by regulating birth, health, labor, and death. Both identify a shift from ruling territory to administering life itself — humans become biological and statistical resources to be optimized. No one feels responsible inside the megamachine; each person performs a technical function. Modern power has no single center; it is diffused through institutions and practices. Power becomes anonymous and embedded, making resistance harder because there is no obvious oppressor — only systems. The myth of the machine tells us technological progress is inevitable and good, and societies operate under regimes of truth — accepted narratives that legitimize power.
Progress, efficiency, and security function as truth-claims that justify control while foreclosing alternatives.
Freedom does not come from smashing machines, but from refusing the identities and roles systems impose. For Mumford liberation requires reclaiming life-centered values and democratic control of technics, for Foucault resistance is local, experimental, and immanent — through new ways of being and knowing.
Main difference between Mumford and Foucault: Humanist Ethics vs. Anti-Humanist Analysis
Mumford supplies the ethical critique that Foucault largely refuses to provide; Foucault supplies the analytic tools Mumford lacks.
Mumford | Foucault
Explicitly humanist | Suspicious of humanism
Normative: says what should be | Descriptive: shows how power works
Calls for moral limits | Calls for critique and resistance
⸻ ⓦ ⸻
The pentagon of power (Pecunia, Power, Property, Publicity, Progress.) captures the operating logic of Mumford’s megamachine, especially in its modern form. Each term names a reinforcing pillar of systemic domination, and together they explain how power becomes self-justifying, self-expanding, and seemingly inevitable.
The Pentagon of Power explains how modern megamachines sustain themselves by converting money, authority, ownership, ideology, and technological progress into a mutually reinforcing system that subordinates life to control.
Pecunia (Money / Quantification)
Money is not just exchange — it is abstraction.
> Everything becomes measurable, comparable, tradable.
> Human values are reduced to cost–benefit calculations.
> Moral or qualitative limits disappear once something can be priced.
Function: Turns life, labor, nature, and even death into inputs and outputs.
Power (Command / Coercion)
This is centralized, organized power:
> Military, state, corporate, bureaucratic authority.
> The capacity to enforce decisions at scale.
Function: Ensures compliance when consent fails. Power backs pecunia and property with force.
Property (Ownership / Control)
Property defines who controls resources, land, tools, and increasingly **information and data**.
> Ownership separates users from decision-makers.
> Control is legalized and normalized.
Function: Locks power into durable structures, making inequality systemic rather than accidental.
Publicity (Myth / Ideology / Spectacle)
Publicity is not just advertising—it is myth-production.
> Narratives of success, security, inevitability, progress.
> Media, education, propaganda, expert discourse.
Function: Creates consent. Makes domination appear natural, beneficial, or unavoidable.
This is where the 'myth of the machine' operates most effectively.
Progress (Technological Destiny)
Progress functions as a secular religion.
> Newer = better.
> Faster = superior.
> More complex = more advanced.
Function: Silences critique. Any resistance can be dismissed as “anti-progress,” “reactionary,” or “unrealistic.”
How the Pentagon Works as a System (The key insight is that none of these stands alone:
> Pecunia funds Power
> Power protects Property
> Property concentrates Pecunia
> Publicity legitimizes all three: Pecunia, Power & Propert
> Progress justifies their expansion into the future
This creates a dangerouw closed feedback loop — a machine that no longer needs ethical justification because it claims historical necessity. Because the Pentagon of Power:
> Makes destruction appear rational
> Makes domination appear neutral
> Makes resistance appear irrational
> Makes humans subordinate to systems they created
The Pentagon of Power produces a civilization that is **technically brilliant and morally hollow**.
Foucault would say this pentagon of power operates through:
> Power / knowledge (Publicity + Progress)
> Biopower (Power managing populations)
> Normalization (Property and pecunia defining what counts as “productive” life)
Mumford names the structure; Foucault explains the micro-mechanisms.