Reviewed by:

• Technik als Motor der Modernisierung ed. by Thomas Zoglauer, Karsten Weber and Hans Fries
• Mikael Hård (bio)

This edited volume poses a question familiar to readers of Technology and Culture: is “technology the engine of modernization?” Despite no question mark in the main title, Thomas Zoglauer in his introductory essay makes it clear that the volume should be read as an attempt to further the discussion about “the interaction between technology and society” (p. 23). Twenty-five years after Merritt Roe Smith and Leo Marx asked: Does Technology Drive History? (1994), we still do not seem to have overcome “The Dilemma of Technological Determinism,” to quote Smith and Marx’s subtitle. Considering the widespread use of concepts like “co-evolution” and “co-construction” in the history and sociology of technology for almost two decades, Zoglauer’s observation that initial attempts to find a “middle ground between technological determinism and social constructivism” have “recently” appeared is quite surprising (p. 11). Even more astonishing is that neither Zoglauer nor his co-editors delivers a substantial discussion about the concept Modernisierung. Reducing modernization to “the transition from agricultural to industrial society” (p. 13) is certainly inadequate.

Technik als Motor der Modernisierung’s strength lies in the individual contributions. Although the chapters are of very different length and character, each contains empirical information and reflexive comments of relevance to our understanding of technology’s place in nineteenth- and twentieth-century European societies. Whereas some chapters are descriptive and accessible for a lay audience, others are highly theoretical and seem to be directed to specialists.

At one end of the spectrum is Andreas Benz’s technologically deterministic account of cross-border railroad traffic’s revolutionary impact on the postal system in the second half of the nineteenth century, along with Norman Pohl’s discussion about how the chemical industry has triggered [End Page 948] and reacted to various, at times utopian, expectations and needs. At the other extreme we find Nina Köberer and Matthias Rath’s philosophical and sociological analysis of the role of digital media technologies for human communication in modern societies.

Nele-Hendrikje Lehmann’s chapter about the conception and design of technology museums in the German Democratic Republic of the 1950s and ’60s ought to interest many readers of this journal. Despite the centrality of the productive forces in Marxist ideology and the intense competition between the “First and Second Worlds,” East Germany did not create an equivalent to the Deutsches Museum in Munich. Instead, in 1958, the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party decided to design so-called polytechnical museums on local or regional levels. Most of these initiatives never fulfilled the high ambitions. The collaboration with existing folk museums turned out to be difficult, and acquiring suitable objects was a challenge. The implementation of new pedagogic ideas to exemplify what one commentator formulated as “lawful historical processes,” often led to “boring exhibitions and unsatisfied visitors” (pp. 218–19). The attempts “to make machines speak” often degenerated into endless texts on innumerable posters (p. 219).

Lehmann’s chapter, based on fresh source material, is exciting. Other chapters are more conventional. Hans Friesen’s essay on the relationship between technological options and architectural form discusses largely well-known developments and famous architects: Loos, Gropius, Le Cor-busier. The same can be said of Zoglauer’s contribution, where the writings of Verne, Wells, Spengler, and others are consulted to support the thesis that “technology criticism always represents a critique of modernity” (p. 54). To my mind, such a conclusion not only goes too far; it also fails to acknowledge that modernity and modernization are neither uniform nor monolithic processes. The question mark in the title of Thomas Rohkrämer’s book Eine andere Moderne? (1999) is meant to make us aware that other forms of modernity might be possible.

Dr Hård is professor of the history of technology at the Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany. He is currently directing a project on the global history of technology, 1850–2000, financed by...

审核人：

• Technik als Motor der Modernisierung ed。Thomas Zoglauer，Karsten Weber和Hans Fries撰写
• MikaelHård（生物）

这本编辑的书提出了一个技术和文化读者熟悉的问题：“技术是现代化的引擎吗？” 尽管主标题中没有问号，托马斯·佐格劳尔（Thomas Zoglauer）在介绍性文章中明确指出，应将本卷阅读，以试图进一步探讨“技术与社会之间的相互作用”（第23页）。在梅里特·罗·史密斯（Merritt Roe Smith）和利奥·马克思（Leo Marx）问了25年之后：技术驱动历史吗？（1994），引用史密斯和马克思的副标题，我们似乎仍未克服“技术决定论的困境”。考虑到近二十年来在技术的历史和社会学中广泛使用“共同进化”和“共同建构”等概念，佐格劳尔的观察发现，最初的尝试是寻找“技术决定论与社会建构主义之间的中间地带”。最近出现”非常令人惊讶（第11页）。更令人惊讶的是，佐格劳尔和他的合著者都没有对“现代主义”概念进行实质性讨论。将现代化减少为“从农业社会向工业社会的转变”（第13页）当然是不够的。

Technik als Motor der Modernisierung的实力在于个人的贡献。尽管各章的篇幅和性质截然不同，但各章均包含经验信息和反思性评论，这些评论与我们对技术在19世纪和20世纪欧洲社会中的地位的理解有关。尽管有些章节是描述性的，可供普通读者访问，但其他章节的理论性很强，似乎是针对专家的。

范围的一端是安德烈亚斯·本茨（Andreas Benz）对跨境铁路交通在19世纪下半叶对邮政系统的革命性影响的技术确定性描述，以及诺曼·波尔（Norman Pohl）关于化学工业如何触发的讨论[End Page 948]并对各种有时甚至是乌托邦式的期望和需求做出反应。在另一个极端，我们发现NinaKöberer和Matthias Rath对数字媒体技术在现代社会中对人类传播的作用的哲学和社会学分析。

Nele-Hendrikje Lehmann关于1950年代和60年代德国民主共和国技术博物馆的概念和设计的章节应该引起该杂志许多读者的兴趣。尽管生产力在马克思主义意识形态中处于中心地位，并且“第一世界和第二世界”之间竞争激烈，但东德并未创造出与慕尼黑德意志博物馆相当的作品。相反，1958年，社会统一党中央委员会决定在地方或地区各级设计所谓的理工学院博物馆。这些举措大多数都没有实现雄心壮志。事实证明，与现有民俗博物馆的合作很困难，而要找到合适的物品是一个挑战。实施新的教学思想，以例证一位评论员所说的“合法历史过程，”常常导致“无聊的展览和不满意的访客”（第218-19页）。试图“使机器说话”的尝试常常退化为无数海报上无尽的文字（第219页）。

雷曼的一章以新鲜的原料为基础，令人兴奋。其他章节则更为常规。汉斯·弗里森（Hans Friesen）关于技术选择与建筑形式之间关系的文章主要讨论了著名的开发项目和著名的建筑师：Loos，Gropius和Le Cor-busier。佐格劳尔的贡献也可以这样说，凡尔纳，韦尔斯，斯宾格勒等人的著作都得到了参考，以支持“技术批评总是代表对现代性的批判”这一论点（第54页）。在我看来，这样的结论不仅太过分了；而且 它也没有承认现代性和现代化既不是统一的也不是整体的过程。ThomasRohkrämer的著作Eine andere Moderne的书名中的问号？ （1999）的目的是使我们意识到其他形式的现代性也是可能的。

Hård博士是德国达姆施塔特技术大学的技术史教授。他目前正在指导一个有关1850-2000年全球技术史的项目，该项目由...