But then, history of technology or History of Technology? 'd Better agree, you say. And specifically, in the delivery that I received on Monday morning to find several articles on the semantics of the word technology, in particular, Eric Schatzberg an article entitled " Technik Comes to America, Changing Meanings of Technology Before 1930" (T & C , vol. 47, No. 3, July 2006, pp. ; 486-512). It aims to explain precisely the gap between English and other European languages the word "technology" - the latter having practically substituted, in English, the term "technical , "since the 1930s. Very interesting article, for those who have not have the courage to read it, here's a summary Approximate. From
Technik to technology
The term "technology" is German invention, used for the first time by Johann Beckmann, a professor at the venerable University of Göttingen, who published in 1777 a Anleitung zur Technologie ( Introduction to technology), it is the science devoted to the study of technical processes, the same way that the mineralogy is the science that studies minerals. It is the sense he keeps throughout the nineteenth century e: for example how we should include the name of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, founded in 1861. It is a rare term, although some works qualify themselves as "technology": they are general views of what was then called industrial arts, to the attention of famous public grown more than practitioners.
According Schnatzberg, the transfer of meaning occurs in the early years of the twentieth century and e originates not in the concept of technology as used by Beckman in thought but German Technik at the end of the nineteenth century e, where it is not far to study the manufacturing processes but to express its own logic to correction in industrial, embodied in the culture of engineering. The technical Gallicism not appropriate (English reserving to the gesture of the artist), authors in political economy continued reflection on the Technik come, faute de mieux, to reclaim the term of technology: this is the case a post-Marxist thinker steeped in social Darwinism, Thorstein Veblen, who wants to see the technology instinctive and positive momentum of humanity, however, likely to be diverted by what he calls financial institutions to form capitalism.
The term was taken by his successors, who abandoned the Marxist critique of industrial capitalism and technology are the word a synonym of technical progress, the advance of human domination over the material world.
And we, then?
the Arctic is not interested in further developments of the word, let alone the tension on the term "technology" in other languages, eg French. Yet there is much to say the contrast between the words "technical" and "technology" is at the heart of the debate on the technical facts that grows in France in the 60s and 70s - even the title is a collection of essays edited by Jacques Guillerme in 1973. The period is, indeed, marked by the linguistic turn and srtucturalisme: we scaffold loves his thoughts on a variety of critical pairs, lexicon, syntax, metaphor / metonymy, builder / engineer (I will come back from that one) ... and, therefore, technical / engineering, for those who deign to be interested in these subjects.
In this case, contrary to what was observed in the English language, the word "technology" is strictly confined to that of a type of discourse on scientific technical processes. The immediate and decisive influence of such technology on process improvement techniques seem to have been regarded as self-evident, which does not seem so obvious. Suddenly, the pitfalls are numerous: gradisme enough primary would see a technological era of applied science productionse to replace an era of routine technical ignorant; determinism to the punch for which the birth of a technological discourse leads, almost automatically, the industrial era - the introduction of technology and technology of Jacques Guillerme significant lack of caution on both fronts. Finally, taking as its starting point the opposition technique / technology, we are likely, as the English inn, to eat what we had brought: the organic link that postulates the sense that one has known the word "technology" between scholarly knowledge and technical change. Link that deserves further discussion.
Technology, Technology
And yet the language has evolved. In French and English, the term has evolved for the vast majority of people, the term no longer refers to technology or know a discourse on the art but a consistent set of technical devices. Evolution is not unusual, see psychology. Usage is even perfectly Official: it was not so long as in my profession, the ministry we basins on the "new information technologies and communication" - the top was to be charge of ICT mission very well on the cards. Until you realize that it had nothing much new.
course, one can reject this understanding of technology as anglicism - it is part. Remains that betting big on the opposition lexical technique / technology, historians and thinkers speaking techniques take a risk, increasing: that of being understood or of their contemporaries, or their foreign colleagues. Or devote, to justify their use of the term, a time that could probably be better spent.
0 comments:
Post a Comment