Modernity and Technology

Tom Misa indicates in a proposition in his chapter. This implies a further proposition about technology and modernity being interconnected. It is this idea of interconnectedness that led us to deplore the “great divide” between detailed technology studies, with their claim of situated developments and contingency, and abstract or theoretical discussions of modernity. We exaggerated a bit in order to make a point and set up a twin argument for an empirical turn in modernity studies and for recognizing broader structures and long-term dynamics in technology studies. Conjuring up a field of technology and modernity studies in this way was made easier because the authors had already been looking for bridges across this great divide before, and they could build on the work of colleagues and discussions with them at the November 1999 workshop at the University of Twente. In other words, we did not start from zero. Yet the divide between technology studies and modernity studies remains difficult to bridge. There are methodological challenges, often summarized as the contrast between micro (or local) and macro (or global) levels of analysis. There are also substantial issues about the nature of modernity (and of technology, for that matter) and about the different perspectives that can be brought to bear, especially when further diagnosis is required that concerns openings for change and desirable directions. Tom Misa’s introduction outlined a program but also left room for the other authors to analyze the tensions and offer their own approaches and insights. It is fitting to look back, at the end of this volume, and ask how far we have come. In this way we continue the conversation about 13 Modernity and Technology—An Afterword