History and Technology 

About: History and Technology is an academic journal published by Routledge. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Politics & German. It has an ISSN identifier of 0734-1512. Over the lifetime, 712 publications have been published receiving 7888 citations.

The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology

Abstract: edu The abrupt reversal of culturally ascribed primacy in the science‐technology relationship—namely, from the primacy of science relative to technology prior to circa 1980, to the primacy of technology relative to science since about that date—is proposed as a demarcator of postmodernity from modernity: modernity is when ‘science’ could, and often did, denote technology too; postmodernity is when science is subsumed under technology. In support of that demarcation criterion, I evidence the breadth and strength of modernity’s presupposition of the primacy of science to and for technology by showing its preposterous hold upon social theorists—Marx, Veblen, Dewey—whose principles logically required the reverse, viz. the primacy of practice; upon 19th and 20th century engineers and industrialists, social actors whose practical interests likewise required the reverse; and upon the principal theorizers in the 1970s of the role of science in late 20th century technology and society. The reversal in primacy between science and technology ca 1980 came too unexpectedly, too quickly, and, above all, too unreflectively to have resulted from the weight of evidence or the force of logic. Rather, it was a concomitant of the onset of postmodernity. Oddly, historians of technology have remained almost wholly unacknowledging of postmodernity’s epochal elevation of the cultural standing of the subject of their studies, and, specifically, have ignored technology’s elevation relative to science. This I attribute to the ideological character of that discipline, and, specifically, to its strategy of ignoration of science.

The usefulness of evolutionary models for explaining innovation. The case of the Netherlands in the nineteenth century

Abstract: Why do nations and industrial sectors cease to be pioneers? This question is discussed for the case of The Netherlands. Why was innovation in The Netherlands in the nineteenth century virtually limited to elaborating on developments in other countries whereas before it had been a technological paradise? It is argued here that no single reason can account for this loss of technological leadership. A complex of — often mutually reinforcing — factors was at work, some more important than others depending on the sector. The core of the explanation is that the Dutch had developed their own technological regime which was perfected before the nineteenth century. When a new regime emerged elsewhere it was difficult for the Dutch to adjust because of a complex set of barriers embedded in the existing technological regime. The inclination was to revitalise the old merchant capitalist regime and with success — albeit limited in the long run —, as some of the cases in the article show. This conclusion leads to a further question: How do regime shifts occur? Drawing on an evolutionary model, it is argued that new technologies emerge in technological niches, which after a process of branching can lead to a regime shift. Such a shift happens when successful niche formation coincides with a number of favourable external developments. Successful niche formation depends on the articulation of expectations, the coupling of new markets and new technologies, the development of new networks and the emergence of new competencies.

From innovation to use: Ten eclectic theses on the historiography of technology

Abstract: The paper argues that most (Anglo‐Saxon) historiography of technology, including recent sociologically‐oriented work, is concerned with innovation rather than technology, and that there has been an unfortunate conflation between the two. Distinguishing innovation from use allows an engagement between the history of technology and history more generally, and is essential to the investigation of questions concerned with gender, race, and class in the history of technology. Moreover a focus on use allows us to make better sense of such terms as “technological determinism”. The history of innovation, while interesting and important, cannot address many issues which should be central to the history of technology, and cannot answer many of the questions historians of technology pretend to ask. A history of technology‐in‐use does so and, at the same time, opens up new areas for investigation, including the history of maintenance, repair and remodelling, as well as further developing accounts of innovati...

Inventing Europe: technology and the hidden integration of Europe

Abstract: This article serves as an introduction to this special issue as well as a self-standing contribution. Using the lens of technology, we situate European integration (typically viewed as a political process) as an emergent outcome of a process of linking and delinking of infrastructures, as well as the circulation and appropriation of artefacts, systems and knowledge. These processes carried, shaped, flagged, and helped to maintain a sense of Europeanness, bringing out tensions in Europe and tensions about Europe. We call this ‘hidden integration.’ Yet the story of integration does not point to a seamless and inevitable process, a grand project with a set agenda. Instead it was a contested process throughout the 20th century leading to fragmentation as well as to integration. Our approach is contrasted with standard interpretations of European integration that treat European integration as an episode in international relations between nation-states.

Knowledge and professional identity in engineering: code‐switching and the metrics of progress

Abstract: When nations redefine their priorities and re‐plot their directions of travel, engineers get worried about the contents of their knowledge. The cultural and historical specificity of their responses illustrates the extent to which the questions of what counts as engineering knowledge and what counts as an engineer are linked tightly together, and also suggests that both may be tied to local images of the nation. After summarizing recent historical work comparing national patterns in engineering knowledge and engineers' work, this essay outlines how a focus on professional identity may provide a way of accounting for national and transnational influences on engineers while avoiding the specter of determinism. Offering brief case studies drawn from France, the UK, Germany and the USA, the authors describe engineers as ‘responding’ to codes of meaning that live at different scales, including contrasting metrics of progress and images of private industry. The paper is concluded with a brief assessment of some...