换句话说就是:早期现代专业知识和时代错误问题

IF 1 1区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY History and Technology Pub Date : 2019-01-02 DOI:10.1080/07341512.2019.1608082
E. Ash
{"title":"换句话说就是:早期现代专业知识和时代错误问题","authors":"E. Ash","doi":"10.1080/07341512.2019.1608082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The idea of expertise in early modern Europe has attracted significant attention from historians of science and technology in recent years. Some find the term useful in describing the rise of a productive and flexible combination of practical and theoretical knowledge, for which a contemporary word did not yet exist. Others criticize the term as a pernicious anachronism that not only distorts our understanding of the pre-modern past, but also serves to promote a neo-modernization theory of the history of early industrialization. The goal of this article is to ask whether an admittedly anachronistic term such as ‘expertise’ can be a useful and illuminating concept in studying early modern history; whether it can do so without warping our view of the past beyond recognition; and whether it can be decoupled from current versions of modernization theory and other whiggish historical notions.","PeriodicalId":45996,"journal":{"name":"History and Technology","volume":"46 1","pages":"3 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"By any other name: early modern expertise and the problem of anachronism\",\"authors\":\"E. Ash\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07341512.2019.1608082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The idea of expertise in early modern Europe has attracted significant attention from historians of science and technology in recent years. Some find the term useful in describing the rise of a productive and flexible combination of practical and theoretical knowledge, for which a contemporary word did not yet exist. Others criticize the term as a pernicious anachronism that not only distorts our understanding of the pre-modern past, but also serves to promote a neo-modernization theory of the history of early industrialization. The goal of this article is to ask whether an admittedly anachronistic term such as ‘expertise’ can be a useful and illuminating concept in studying early modern history; whether it can do so without warping our view of the past beyond recognition; and whether it can be decoupled from current versions of modernization theory and other whiggish historical notions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History and Technology\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"3 - 30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07341512.2019.1608082\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07341512.2019.1608082","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

近年来,近代早期欧洲的专家观念引起了科学技术史学家的极大关注。一些人发现这个词在描述实践和理论知识的富有成效和灵活结合的兴起时很有用,当时还没有这样一个词。其他人则批评这个词是一个有害的时代错误,它不仅扭曲了我们对前现代历史的理解,而且还促进了早期工业化历史的新现代化理论。这篇文章的目的是问一个公认的时代错误的术语,如“专业知识”是否可以是一个有用的和启发性的概念,在研究早期近代史;它能否做到这一点,而不使我们对过去的看法变得面目全非;以及它能否与当前版本的现代化理论和其他辉格派历史观念脱钩。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
By any other name: early modern expertise and the problem of anachronism
ABSTRACT The idea of expertise in early modern Europe has attracted significant attention from historians of science and technology in recent years. Some find the term useful in describing the rise of a productive and flexible combination of practical and theoretical knowledge, for which a contemporary word did not yet exist. Others criticize the term as a pernicious anachronism that not only distorts our understanding of the pre-modern past, but also serves to promote a neo-modernization theory of the history of early industrialization. The goal of this article is to ask whether an admittedly anachronistic term such as ‘expertise’ can be a useful and illuminating concept in studying early modern history; whether it can do so without warping our view of the past beyond recognition; and whether it can be decoupled from current versions of modernization theory and other whiggish historical notions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
16.70%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: History and Technology serves as an international forum for research on technology in history. A guiding premise is that technology—as knowledge, practice, and material resource—has been a key site for constituting the human experience. In the modern era, it becomes central to our understanding of the making and transformation of societies and cultures, on a local or transnational scale. The journal welcomes historical contributions on any aspect of technology but encourages research that addresses this wider frame through commensurate analytic and critical approaches.
期刊最新文献
Hegemony, co-production and the American Empire: essays in honor of John Krige About the Cover Striking the empire back: Dr. Strangelove and the global histories of technology Botanical surveying, nation-building and American empire: the US quest for a Philippine flora, 1903–1925 How the United States learned to commodify the transnational atom
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1