Reviewed by:

• Technology: Critical History of a Concept by Eric Schatzberg
• David E. Nye (bio)

This excellent book will long be the definitive study of the origin and evolving meaning of "technology." Its core argument was first presented at the 2003 SHOT meeting in Atlanta and appeared later in this journal in 2006. Even then, Eric Schatzberg already had a detailed, convincing argument. He showed how the term "technology" was used in other languages (and with various meanings) before it came into English "through a Latinized Greek neologism in the sixteenth century" but remained an obscure concept for the next 300 years (p. 75). The German-derived "technics" was a rich competing term used from 1870 until the 1930s. Only in the mid-twentieth century did "technology" attain widespread acceptance and something like its present definition—shortly before the first volume of Technology and Culture appeared.

Schatzberg has now widened his scope to include the ancient world, Medieval Latin, the early modern period, many European philosophers and social scientists, and much more on the contradictory American uses of the term after 1935. In his introduction, Schatzberg declares "the definition of technology is a mess" with its "welter of contradictory meanings" (p. 1–2). This is not an accident but down to the western hierarchy of knowledge that places the fine arts and science above the practical arts. That hierarchy originated in the ancient world, and accordingly, Schatzberg explores techne as employed by Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and other classical authors in the tradition of Martin Heidegger in "The Question Concerning Technology" (chapter 1). Schatzberg traces the complex developments in terminology from Greek and Roman to medieval and early modern ideas (chapter 2). Adopting a term from Leo Marx, Schatzberg examines a "semantic void" created by narrow definitions of science and fine art, neither of which considered craftsmanship and practical knowledge. "Technology" would fill that semantic void, borrowing much of its meaning from the German term "technik," as used after 1870 by philosophers, engineers, and social scientists. Sociologist Werner Sombart [End Page 1212] laid foundations for later theories of the social construction of technology when he rejected a deterministic conception of technik and recognized that kultur could influence, hinder, and shape material change (p. 111). Unfortunately, Sombart's views were overwhelmed by less sophisticated formulations, and his ideas did not fill the semantic void. Rather, "the net result of these conceptual changes was to remove human agency from the discourse of industrial modernity at the turn of the twentieth century" (p. 72).

The American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen brought this German discussion into English, assisted by the leading American historian of the 1920s Charles Beard, who championed a more deterministic view of technology. Both influenced the younger Lewis Mumford, who spent several months in 1932 reading intensively about technik at Munich's Deutsches Museum. This research shaped his seminal Technics and Civilization, which rejected autonomous conceptions of technology and argued for the importance of human agency (pp. 146–51). While this work remained influential for decades, the meanings given to "technology" after 1945 were increasingly either deterministic or instrumental. Many critiques from both the right (Jacques Ellul) and the left (Herbert Marcuse) attacked the determinism of technological society. Given the prestige of science, others defined technology as applied science, but engineers abhorred this idea. To develop better ways to understand the technological world, a small group of scholars (many from schools of engineering) came together in 1958 to establish the Society for History of Technology. Yet, the new field had amnesia. "Historians of technology appeared to know nothing about the history of the concept of technology itself, or even to be aware that the concept had a history" (p. 211). In its first decades, the new field struggled with three incompatible definitions—as applied science, as the knowledge and practices of the industrial arts, and as "technique, or instrumental reason"—as well as fending off the various forms of technological determinism that flourished elsewhere in academia and popular culture (p. 212).

This subtle and detailed work will be required reading for anyone working in...

审核人：

• 技术：概念的批判史，作者：埃里克·沙茨伯格（Eric Sc​​hatzberg）
• 戴维·奈（生物）

长期以来，这本出色的书将彻底地研究“技术”的起源和演变的含义。它的核心论点最初是在2003年亚特兰大的SHOT会议上提出的，后来出现在2006年的该期刊中。即使到那时，埃里克·沙茨伯格（Eric Sc​​hatzberg）也已经有了详尽而令人信服的论点。他展示了“技术”一词是如何在其他语言（以及具有各种含义）中使用的，然后才通过16世纪的拉丁希腊新词在英语中出现，但是在接下来的300年中它仍然是一个晦涩的概念（第75页） 。德国派生的“技术”一词在1870年到1930年代之间是一个富于竞争的术语。直到二十世纪中叶，“技术”

Schatzberg现在将其范围扩大到包括古代世界，中世纪拉丁语，近代早期，许多欧洲哲学家和社会科学家，以及更多关于1935年以后美国对该术语的矛盾用法。Schatzberg在其引言中宣称“定义技术的混乱和“矛盾的含义的混乱”（第1-2页）。这不是偶然，而是西方知识体系将美术和科学置于实用艺术之上。这种等级制度起源于古代世界，因此，沙茨伯格（Schatzberg）探索技术由柏拉图，亚里斯多德，西塞罗和其他古典作家在马丁·海德格尔（Martin Heidegger）的传统著作《技术问题》（第1章）中采用。Schatzberg追溯了从希腊和罗马到中世纪和早期现代思想的术语的复杂发展（第2章）。Schatzberg采纳了Leo Marx的一个术语，研究了由狭义的科学和美术定义所创造的“语义空虚”，而这两者均未考虑手工艺和实践知识。“技术”将填补语义上的空白，并从哲学家，工程师和社会科学家于1870年后使用的德语术语“技术”中汲取其大部分含义。TECHNIK并认识到KULTUR可能影响，阻碍，和形状材料变化（第111页）。不幸的是，Sombart的观点被不太复杂的表述淹没了，他的想法并没有填补语义上的空白。相反，“这些概念性变化的最终结果是在二十世纪初将人类的代理从工业现代性的讨论中消除了”（第72页）。

在1920年代美国著名历史学家查尔斯·比尔德（Charles Beard）的倡导下，美国经济学家和社会学家索尔斯坦·韦布伦（Thorstein Veblen）将德国的讨论带入了英语，他倡导了更加确定性的技术观。这两种影响了年轻的刘易斯·芒福德，谁在1932年花了几个月的深入阅读TECHNIK在慕尼黑的德意志博物馆。这项研究塑造了他开创性的技术与文明，它拒绝了自主的技术概念，并主张人类代理的重要性（第146-51页）。尽管这项工作数十年来一直具有影响力，但1945年后赋予“技术”的含义越来越具有确定性或工具性。右派（雅克·埃卢尔）和左派（赫伯特·马尔库塞）的许多批评都抨击了技术社会的决定论。鉴于科学的威望，其他人将技术定义为应用科学，但是工程师们却反对这种想法。为了开发更好的方法来理解技术世界，1958年，一小群学者（许多来自工学院）聚集在一起，成立了技术史学会。但是，新领域出现了健忘症。“技术历史学家似乎对技术概念本身的历史一无所知，

从事此工作的任何人都需要阅读这些细微而详尽的工作。