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

by David Edgerton (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
A class titled History of Modern Technology 101 would probably focus on electricity, mass production, the automobile and the Internet, but according to British historian Edgerton, it would miss the real history of 20th-century technology. We should pay less attention to novelty and invention, he argues, and more to the technologies that people actually use in their daily lives—"a whole invisible world of technologies," many of which have served the poor more than the rich, such as corrugated metal and flat-pack IKEA furniture. Ranging across broad swaths of history, Edgerton offers multiple examples of overlooked technologies that are far more important than they might initially seem, including the condom and the sewing machine, as well as innovations in killing, such as insecticides, slaughterhouses and chemical warfare. The result, while sometimes overly pedantic for nonhistorians, is a provocative challenge to students of technology. (Jan.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist
Despite too many opaque sentences, this book is utterly fascinating. The common view of technology as a matter of novelty, of invention and innovation accelerating into the future, is very limited, Edgerton says. To understand technology historically, consider technology in use, and some remarkable facts emerge. Highly touted new technologies, such as the Pill and atomic power, were derailed by unforeseen (AIDS) or unconsidered (nuclear waste disposal) developments and sidelined by the technologies they had supposedly made obsolescent. The huge twentieth-century surge in productivity depended on improving old technologies, and we see the effect in such places as China of the quick succession of technological revolutions that occurred over more time in the U.S. Maintenance consumes a much larger proportion of technological effort than innovation, nations a-building characteristically attempt to control certain technologies for nationalistic purposes, and war and killing are the wellsprings of the most consequential modern inventions. In short, the old ways--power by harness animals, nationalism, warfare, slaughtering for food--don't fade away. They adapt, and that is the real big story about technology. Ray Olson
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 288 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (December 15, 2006)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0195322835
• ISBN-13: 978-0195322835
• Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.5 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #282,025 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

14 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A radically different view of the history of technology through the eyes of one of Britain's leading historians. , March 18, 2007

By	Paul Tognetti "The real world is so much more... (Cranston, RI USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

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.

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Worthwhile subject but uneven treatment, November 23, 2007

By	Caticia - See all my reviews

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.

2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars It's about politics, not technology, May 27, 2008

By	P. Chrzanowski (Chicago IL USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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).