Customer Reviews

The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Every day each one of us is bombarded by commercial messages touting the latest and greatest products. You can now purchase a self-cleaning hot tub or a cell phone that can store and play thousands of songs. But just how much useful innovation is really taking place in the opening decade of the 21st Century? In "The Shock of The Old" author David Edgerton offers the somewhat controversial proposition that in spite of all of the hype what is happening today really is not all that innovative after all. Rather, Edgerton argues "judging from the present, the past looks extraordinarily innovative." The interesting arguments made by Edgerton are certainly worth exploring.

Whether discussing innovations in military technology, transportation, pharmaceuticals or consumer products, David Edgerton wants to find out not only how useful these technologies really are but also how much they are actually used. Although Edgertons writing style proves to be less than scintillating, his idea is certainly a fascinating one. For example, Edgerton argues rather effectively that rockets and the atomic bomb are two of the most overrated technologies in military history. The fact of the matter is that much older technologies such as airplanes, the rifle and heavy artillery remain to this day the most prolific tools of war. Indeed, Edgerton even goes so far as to suggest that had the United States directed more of its resources to traditional weapons like these instead of the atomic bomb then World War II might have actually been concluded much sooner. And while the German V-2 rocket was capable of delivering a one ton warhead to a target some 200 miles away it was certainly not very cost effective. In fact, Edgerton quotes Michael Neufield who has written extensively about the V-2 project that "more people died producing it than died from being hit by it." It is apparent to the author that many of these highly touted new technologies were vastly overrated by those in charge on both sides in World War II.
Throughout "The Shock of the Old" David Edgerton argues that the most innovative times in history were around the turn of the century and during the years between the great World Wars. He cites example after example of how technologies developed during these periods continue to play a key role in the lives of people all over the world, particularly those in poorer nations. He takes a look at a variety of industries including shipping, meat-packing and automobiles. He also warns those who are counting on future breakthroughs to solve all manner of problems such as energy, health concerns and global warming to think again.

I found "The Shock of the Old" to be a bit tedious at times and somewhat repetitive. Perhaps this is due to the complexity of the subject matter. Nevertheless, it is a book that offers much food for thought. This is a scholarly work that deserves your consideration.

While I wouldn't go as far as calling Edgerton a "Guardian Slock" I do believe his arguments would have been more convincing had they been more factual and less cherry-picked to support his initial premise, which to be honest wasn't completely clear to me after awhile but I think had to do with certain inventions through history being overrated, which I agree with. And I also think the most important question he raised was how can these inventions be so important if it's only the rich countries of North America, Europe, Australia, Japan, etc. that use them and the rest of the world the majority of humanity aren't able to afford them.

Personally I believe that many of our so-called technological advances become popular not so much because we have a need for them or that they make our lives easier but because big business can make big bucks off of them. Case in point cell-phones, cell-phone cameras, cell-phone ring tones, etc. Not exactly an earth shattering relevation. But things like electricity, metal airplanes, washing machines, etc., I have to say contrary to what Edgerton would have his reader believe are kind of better than what preceded them. I thought he was joking when he was trying to argue that wooden airplanes were just about as good as those made from metal. Can you imagine a 747 made of wood? And I think he was also serious when trying to point out that the fact that the German Army in WWII used 625,000 horses in their invasion of the Soviet Union somehow proved that motorized vehicles were not as significant during the war as we might have been led to believe by most historial accounts. The Germans lost bitterly in the Soviet Union. The Germans may have used horses but seeing as how they didn't win it really isn't a great argument for their being especially effective. Personally, I think it's very possible that air travel and motorized warfare themselves haven't been exactly beneficial to mankind, and whether or not they are better or worse than the technology that directly preceded them is immaterial.

Overall I think this book is worthwhile reading, and the digs at Americans are probaby good for those of us who may not be aware of how the rest of the world see us. But I think Edgerton suffers to some extent from the same problem that radical writers on the Left like Chomsky and on the Right like Lynn Cheney have in that they use historical information to back up their arguments and don't bother to double check to make sure the information is correct. In some cases they may not care and are more interested in convincing the reader of their view than of providing factual information.

The history we are taught in school, held to be common knowledge, is almost always wrong, and nowhere is this more true than with the history of technology. Growing up in the United States, I was taught that everything was invented in America: that Howe invented the sewing machine, Fulton the steamboat, Morse the telegraph, and Edison invented the incandescent light bulb everything else. Of course, none of that is true, and my favorite books are everything-you-know-is-wrong books which correct our assumptions of how modern life came to be. "The Shock of the Old" is one of the best of these, and it is full of examples of how inventions developed in unexpected places. For example, he points out that in 1895, there were more automobiles running on the streets of Barcelona than there were in New York (or Detroit).

But is it all accurate? For the most part, detailed source notes are provided, but then Edgerton makes such statements as that prior to 1939 only Great Britain and Germany had broadcast television. I suppose that by 1939, he refers to the public demonstration of television at the New York World's Fair, but prior to that Britain's broadcast television was from the Baird Television company, which employed the *mechanical* capture and reproduction of a moving image using a spinning disk system invented in 1883 by German engineer Paul Nipkow.

This is the second book I've read (the other being The Industrial Revolutionaries: The Making of the Modern World 1776-1914) that was written by a Brit whose intent seems to be to counteract the collective egotism of Americans by minimizing (or ignoring) American innovations. Can't anyone simply state the facts without a hidden agenda? I am certainly no great patriot, but I think that it's undeniable that Edgerton means to take America down a notch here.

In addition to that, the book is poorly organized. Yes, there's a wealth of information worth knowing, but it seems to be in no particular order -- certainly not chronological. This makes for fun reading for short periods, but then the avalanche of facts begins to pall.

On the plus side, Edgerton writes in clear, flawless English, something seemingly beyond the capability of many American authors.

Much of the technology that we used today has much deeper connections to the past. Recency bias often overwhelms too much of our thinking. Worth a read.

My poor reaction to the book is, I think, due to expecting it to be about technology, rather than a rambling (and not always logical) account of the politics of technology.

That old technology remains in use long after the new is introduced is not in doubt-- for example, steam did not instantly chase sail off the world's oceans, and he's far from the first to point out that Germany's WWII army moved with vast amounts of horsepower.

But, he lost me when he did that facile cost-effects analysis of the WWII atomic bombings of Japan. There are, of course, many arguments for and against the bombings, but, his did not seem to make much sense. That is, he argued that the two atomic bombs really caused no more destruction than two conventional air raids, and therefore it made no sense that the U.S. used so many resources to develop them.

But, the U.S. did not phone the Japanese leadership and announce that after the first two targets had been hit then in a month or so the U.S. might build another atomic bomb and destroy another Japanese city. Rather, the U.S. announced that it had a terrible new weapon, and that Japan would be utterly destroyed if it did not promptly surrender. And how was the Japanese leadership to know that the U.S. did not actually have hundreds of atomic bombs?

To state what seems obvious to all but the author, what counts in war is not so much what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. Indeed, the author points out that the firebombing of Tokyo caused far more death and destruction than the atomic bombings-- but why, then, did the former did not produce surrender, yet the latter did?

The author says much the same about the German V-2 rocket missile weapon as well, yet this is a very different case. He apparently thinks himself very clever to point out that, had Germany devoted the V-2 resources to more conventional weapons such tanks and fighter planes, it would have better served its military purposes.

The problem is, this is hardly a contrarian position (and the author is heavily postured as contrarian) as just about everyone else who's written on the V-2 has said essentially the same thing. Rather, what made the V-2 notable was the post-WWII realization that a long-range rocket missile *with an atomic warhead* would in fact produce the "annihilating power" that Hitler sought (but, fortunately, did not obtain).

And then there's that later chapter in which he segues abruptly from the slaughter of animals for food to the mass murder of people. It's not at all clear why he does this, except perhaps for the shock value. His point here is supposedly that Holocaust denial is ideocy because it's just not that technically difficult to murder millions of people; yet, the real reason why Holocaust denial is idiocy is because the historical evidence that it happened is overwhelming.

In short, I expected this book to be about the history of technology yet it is more accurately described as a political ramble to here and there (and to no apparent purpose).

THE SHOCK OF THE OLD: TECHNOLOGY AND GLOBAL HISTORY SINCE 1900 draws some important connections between technological advancements and world history, drawing interconnected analysis of global history and issues of the arts, production, politics and war. This history here is surveyed with an emphasis on what people actually used from technology, rather than inventions: a focus which lends depth and some surprising revelations into the mix of analysis. SHOCK OF THE OLD is a top pick for college-level history holdings, but many a public library will find it is easy to digest, also.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

A look at the 20th Century with a fresh eye. The essential point - we didn't live through a period of great technological change, it was a period of technological stability. Think of the changes from 1807 to 1907, then from 1907 to 2007. Which saw the greater change? And that's the point discussed with wit and verve.

This book is simply the best broad analysis of the role of technology in society that one can read: Superb! My only criticism is that the author occasionally slips in gratuitous (or at the least, unbalanced by counter-examples or context) anti-American remarks. While distracting, this bias is entirely predictable from a UK academic of his generation; his central ideas can be recommended without reservations of any kind.

Rather typical nonsense from a Guardian contributor. Selective choice of facts to substantiate an anti-American syllabus of cant. The comments on the rise and fall and rise of malaria are foremost in the twisting of history. Add to that priase for the Trabant...