European authoritarianism has often relied upon innovation and technoscience – technological, medical and scientific research and its tools – as levers to consolidate, legitimate and augment power – controlling knowledge creation and information distribution. Because of this, much scholarship on authoritarianism has necessarily had to focus on technoscientific issues in order to understand mechanisms of control and ideology. In recent decades, in what might seem obvious to social historians, scholars of Science and Technology Studies (STS) coming from the fields of anthropology, architecture and history, such as Elizabeth Dixon Whitaker, Lucy M. Maulsby, Asif Siddiqi and Robert N. Proctor, to name just a few, have aptly shown that socio-political context affects questions of scientific inquiry under European dictatorships. Indeed, this is true of all knowledge production, including

中文翻译：

---

在人类世定位独裁：科学技术史和欧洲威权主义研究的史学趋势

欧洲威权主义经常依赖创新和技术科学——技术、医学和科学研究及其工具——作为巩固、合法化和增强权力的杠杆——控制知识创造和信息分配。正因为如此，许多关于威权主义的学术研究必然不得不关注技术科学问题，以了解控制和意识形态的机制。近几十年来，在社会历史学家看来似乎显而易见的事情中，来自人类学、建筑和历史领域的科技研究 (STS) 学者，如 Elizabeth Dixon Whitaker、Lucy M. Maulsby、Asif Siddiqi 和 Robert N.仅举几例，普罗克特已经恰当地表明，社会政治背景会影响欧洲独裁统治下的科学探究问题。确实，