Difference between revisions of "325--Week 5 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Virginia Penny – Watchmaking) |
(→Michael Adas, Machines as the Measure of Men) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
I truly enjoyed this essay I found it very insightful and hypocritical when it came to the European’s views of their superiority. Europeans and Americans saw themselves as the “lords of humankind” they decided that they were superior to all other nations due to their scientific and technological achievements. They also believed that the measurement of scientific and technological achievement is the gauge by which non-western societies might be evaluated, classified, and ranked. When I read this I thought to myself, “isn’t that cultural”. I was happy to see that a few paragraphs later, it was stated that this gauge was culture bound and biased. The essay went on to talk about how writers at that time followed ideology, and how the railroad because the key symbol of superiority. I really liked this sentence, I think it is very telling, “The assumption that it was desirable for humans to master nature and that the scientifically minded and inventive Europeans were best at doing so led many authors to the conviction that it was the destiny and duty of the Europeans to expand into and develop regions occupied by less advanced peoples” (227). Based off this ideology, I found it really funny when the essay made a turn to show that once the Chinese and Japanese developed their science and technology, they were still considered inferior! In fact, the Europeans were afraid that the Chinese would capitalize off their new technologies and take jobs from the Europeans. I think Jacques Novicov had it right when he said that industrial achievements of the Japanese demonstrated that they were the European’s equals. However, Europeans refuse to accept this, they argue that they are imitating Europeans and will never reason logically like a European. I find this essay truly representative of western thought. Is it just me, or do we still hold this ideology of superiority true to this day? I personally think that we still, to some extent, measure superiority based off of science and technology. - Erin Sanderson | I truly enjoyed this essay I found it very insightful and hypocritical when it came to the European’s views of their superiority. Europeans and Americans saw themselves as the “lords of humankind” they decided that they were superior to all other nations due to their scientific and technological achievements. They also believed that the measurement of scientific and technological achievement is the gauge by which non-western societies might be evaluated, classified, and ranked. When I read this I thought to myself, “isn’t that cultural”. I was happy to see that a few paragraphs later, it was stated that this gauge was culture bound and biased. The essay went on to talk about how writers at that time followed ideology, and how the railroad because the key symbol of superiority. I really liked this sentence, I think it is very telling, “The assumption that it was desirable for humans to master nature and that the scientifically minded and inventive Europeans were best at doing so led many authors to the conviction that it was the destiny and duty of the Europeans to expand into and develop regions occupied by less advanced peoples” (227). Based off this ideology, I found it really funny when the essay made a turn to show that once the Chinese and Japanese developed their science and technology, they were still considered inferior! In fact, the Europeans were afraid that the Chinese would capitalize off their new technologies and take jobs from the Europeans. I think Jacques Novicov had it right when he said that industrial achievements of the Japanese demonstrated that they were the European’s equals. However, Europeans refuse to accept this, they argue that they are imitating Europeans and will never reason logically like a European. I find this essay truly representative of western thought. Is it just me, or do we still hold this ideology of superiority true to this day? I personally think that we still, to some extent, measure superiority based off of science and technology. - Erin Sanderson | ||
| + | |||
| + | While there were many aspects of Adas' article that I found intriguing, I'd like to focus on the historic timeline that he addresses. For centuries the Chinese and Arabian cultures were the most technologically advanced civilizations. The former remained isolated while that later expanded under the guise of religious evangelism. As the technological and scientific advances of these cultures reached Europe, the "Age of Exploration," and "Industrial Revolution" among other trends jump-started European advancement until these nations became technologically superior to the "eastern world" which became inherently "backward" from the European perspective. Recent technological advancements through industrialization and the rise of the "Age of Technology" in the 21st century have enabled these "backward" countries to now outdo the "western world" of Europe and the United States. Yet, it seems that each of these periods of "advancement" came at the steep price of losing valuable cultural identity traits. This begs the question of whether or not technological advancement truly leads to a better, superior way of life or whether it leads to the corrosion of cultural values and principles. -Bryan Lees | ||
== Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management == | == Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management == | ||
