????本人的人類學(xué)課程要求的閱讀材料的一部分，為了理解方便就順手翻譯了一下，感覺(jué)寫得挺好的。

????基本上就是丟進(jìn)谷歌翻譯弄了一下，然后作了微調(diào)，去除了引用部分。全文共18頁(yè)，先放出來(lái)一部分（實(shí)際上是因?yàn)閼卸杷詻](méi)一口氣翻完）。

????中英對(duì)照，如果基礎(chǔ)夠好的話建議直接英文。有些具體細(xì)節(jié)實(shí)在不知道怎么翻，還請(qǐng)多包涵。

????（建議用電腦端查看，僅僅看手機(jī)端預(yù)覽的排版就非常可怕而且勸退）

The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept

?

技術(shù)——作為危險(xiǎn)概念之浮現(xiàn)

?

Leo Marx

?

?

". . . the essence of technology is by no means anything technological."

- Martin Heidegger

“……技術(shù)的本質(zhì)絕不是任何技術(shù)性的東西。”

-馬丁·海德格爾

?

New Concepts as Historical Markers

作為歷史標(biāo)記的新概念

?

????The history of technology is one of those subjects that most people know more about than they realize. Long before the academy recognized it as a specialized field of scholarly inquiry, American schools were routinely disseminating a sketchy outline of that history to millions of pupils. We learned about James Watt and the steam engine, Eli Whitney and the cotton gin, and about other great inventors and their inventions. Even more important, we were led to assume that innovation in the mechanic arts is a - perhaps the - driving force of human history. The theme was omnipresent in my childhood experience. I met it in the graphic charts and illustrations in my copy of The Book of Knowledge, a popular children's encyclopedia, and in the alluring dioramas of Early Man in the New York Museum of Natural History. These exhibits represented the advance of civilization as a sequence of the inventions in the mechanic arts with which Homo sapiens gained a unique power over nature. This comforting theme remains popular today and is insinuated by all kinds of historical narrative. Here, for example, is a passage from an anthropological study of apes and the origins of human violence:

????技術(shù)的歷史是大多數(shù)人比他們自身意識(shí)到的認(rèn)識(shí)了更多的主題之一。在學(xué)界認(rèn)定它為學(xué)術(shù)研究的專業(yè)領(lǐng)域的很久之前，美國(guó)學(xué)校就經(jīng)常向數(shù)百萬(wàn)的學(xué)生散布該歷史的粗略輪廓。我們了解了詹姆斯·瓦特（James Watt）和蒸汽機(jī)，伊萊·惠特尼（Eli Whitney）和軋棉機(jī)，以及其他偉大的發(fā)明家及其發(fā)明。更重要的是，我們被引導(dǎo)認(rèn)為，機(jī)械藝術(shù)中的創(chuàng)新是，而且很可能是人類歷史發(fā)展的唯一驅(qū)動(dòng)力。在我的童年經(jīng)歷中，這個(gè)想法無(wú)處不在。我在熱門的兒童百科全書(shū)“知識(shí)之書(shū)”的圖形圖表和插圖，以及在紐約自然博物館的《早期人類》迷人的立體幻境中都發(fā)現(xiàn)了這種傾向。這些展覽代表了人類文明的進(jìn)步，因?yàn)樗菣C(jī)械藝術(shù)的一系列發(fā)明創(chuàng)造，而智人因此獲得了凌駕于自然的獨(dú)特力量。這個(gè)令人愉悅的想法在今天仍然很流行，并由各種歷史敘事所隱射。比如說(shuō)，以下是人類學(xué)研究中關(guān)于猿類和人類暴力起源的文章：

????Our own ancestors from this line [of woodland apes] began shaping stone tools and relying much more consistently on meat around 2 million years ago. They tamed fire perhaps 1.5 million years ago. They developed human language at some unknown later time, perhaps 150,000 years ago. They invented agriculture 10,000 years ago. They made gunpowder around 1,000 years ago, and motor vehicles a century ago.

????我們這一系的林地猿類祖先行開(kāi)始塑造石器工具，并在200萬(wàn)年前開(kāi)始更加持續(xù)性地依賴肉類。他們大概在150萬(wàn)年前就已經(jīng)掌握了火焰。他們?cè)诖蠹s15萬(wàn)年前的某個(gè)未知時(shí)期發(fā)展了人類語(yǔ)言。他們?cè)谝蝗f(wàn)年前發(fā)明了農(nóng)業(yè)。他們大約在一千年前制造了火藥，而一個(gè)世紀(jì)前制造了汽車。

????This typical summary of human history from stone age tools to Ford cars illustrates the shared "scientific" understanding, circa 2010, of the history of technology. But one arresting if scarcely noted aspect of the story is the belated emergence of the word used to name the very rubric - the kind of thing - that allegedly drives our history. The word is technology. The fact is that during all but the very last few seconds, as it were, of the ten millennia of recorded human history encapsulated in this account, the concept of technology - as we know it today - did not exist. The word technology, which joined the Greek root, techne (an art or craft) with the suffix ology (a branch of learning), first entered the English language in the seventeenth century. At that time, in keeping with its etymology, a technology was a branch of learning, or discourse, or treatise concerned with the mechanic arts. As Eric Schatzberg has demonstrated in a seminal essay, the word then referred to a field of study, not an object of study.3 But the word, even in that now archaic sense, was a rarity in nineteenth-century America. By 1861, to be sure, it was accorded a somewhat greater prominence by the founders of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but they also were invoking the limited sense of the term to mean higher technical education. As for technology in the now familiar sense of the word - the mechanic arts collectively - it did not catch on in America until around 1900, when a few influential writers, notably Thorstein Veblen and Charles Beard, responding to German usage in the social sciences, accorded technology a pivotal role in shaping modern industrial society. But even then, the use of the word remained largely confined to academic and intellectual circles; it did not gain truly popular currency until the 1930s.

????從石器時(shí)代的工具到福特汽車的人類歷史的典型摘要說(shuō)明了2010年左右（學(xué)界）對(duì)技術(shù)歷史的一致的“科學(xué)”理解。但是，這個(gè)故事的一個(gè)令人難以忘懷的方面是，一個(gè)詞遲到的出現(xiàn)，并且這個(gè)“名稱”，即所謂的這個(gè)“東西”，據(jù)稱推動(dòng)了我們的歷史。這個(gè)詞就是技術(shù)（Technology）。事實(shí)是，囊括了數(shù)千年人類歷史記錄中，除了最后幾秒鐘之外，“技術(shù)”這一概念從未出現(xiàn)。 “技術(shù)”一詞在希臘語(yǔ)的根源，是有techne（一種藝術(shù)或手工藝）和后綴詞ology（一種學(xué)習(xí)的分支）之間進(jìn)行了結(jié)合，并且最早在17世紀(jì)進(jìn)入英語(yǔ)之中。當(dāng)時(shí)，按照其詞源，技術(shù)的意思是與機(jī)械藝術(shù)有關(guān)的學(xué)習(xí)，論述或論文的一個(gè)分支。正如埃里克·沙茨伯格（Eric Schatzberg）在其開(kāi)創(chuàng)性論文中所證明的那樣，該詞當(dāng)時(shí)指涉的的是研究領(lǐng)域，而非研究的對(duì)象。但是，即使從相對(duì)于現(xiàn)在的古老意義上講，該詞在19世紀(jì)的美國(guó)還是很罕見(jiàn)的?？梢钥隙ǖ氖?，直到1861年，麻省理工學(xué)院的創(chuàng)始人在某種程度上延展了其意思，但是他們也援引了有限的含義來(lái)表示高等技術(shù)教育。至于現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)很熟悉的技術(shù)的意思，集體性技藝 (the mechanic arts collectively)，它直到1900年左右才在美國(guó)流行，當(dāng)時(shí)一些有影響力的作家，尤其是Thorstein Veblen和Charles Beard回應(yīng)了德國(guó)在社會(huì)科學(xué)中的使用，賦予技術(shù)在塑造現(xiàn)代工業(yè)社會(huì)中的關(guān)鍵作用。但即使到那時(shí)，該詞的使用仍主要限于學(xué)術(shù)界和知識(shí)界。直到1930年代，它才真正地在普羅大眾之間流行起來(lái)。

????But why, one might ask, is the history of this word important? The answer, from the viewpoint of a cultural historian, is that the emergence of a keyword in public discourse - whether a newly coined word or word invested with new meaning - may prove to be an illuminating historical event. Such keywords often serve as markers, or chronological signposts, of subtle, virtually unremarked, yet ultimately far-reaching changes in culture and society. Recall, for example, Tocqueville's tacit admission, in Democracy in America, that in order to do his subject justice he was compelled to coin the (French) word individualisme, "a novel expression to which a novel idea has given birth"; or Raymond Williams's famous discovery, in writing Culture and Society, of the striking interdependence (or reflexivity) in the relations between certain keywords and fundamental changes in society and culture. Williams had set out to examine the trans formation of culture coincident with the advent of industrial capitalism in Britain, but he found that the concept of culture itself, along with such other pivotal concepts of the era as class, industry, democracy, and art, was a product of - indeed had been invested with its new meaning by - the very changes he proposed to analyze. Not only had those changes lent currency to the concept of culture, but they had simultaneously changed its meaning. I believe that a similar process marked the emergence of technology as a key word in the lexicon we rely on to chart the changing character of contemporary society and culture.

????但是，也許有人會(huì)問(wèn)，為什么這個(gè)詞的歷史很重要？從文化歷史學(xué)家的角度來(lái)看，在公共話語(yǔ)中突然出現(xiàn)的關(guān)鍵字詞，無(wú)論是新造的單詞還是突然具有新含義的單詞，就可能是具有啟發(fā)性的歷史事件。此類關(guān)鍵字通常充當(dāng)微妙的，但事實(shí)上尚未在當(dāng)時(shí)被標(biāo)記的，具有時(shí)間次序的路標(biāo)，最終標(biāo)記了影響深遠(yuǎn)的文化和社會(huì)變化?；叵胍幌峦锌司S爾在美國(guó)民主中的默許（tacit admission, 暫時(shí)不確定這是什么），為了達(dá)成他的主觀正義，他被迫創(chuàng)造了“個(gè)人主義”（individualism）一詞，并表示“一種新穎的表達(dá)催生了一個(gè)新穎的想法”；或者是雷蒙德·威廉姆斯（Raymond Williams）在撰寫《文化與社會(huì)》(Culture and Society) 時(shí)著名發(fā)現(xiàn)，即某些關(guān)鍵字與社會(huì)和文化的根本變化之間的關(guān)系具有驚人的相互依存性（或反身性）。威廉姆斯曾著手研究與英國(guó)工業(yè)資本主義的到來(lái)相伴的文化轉(zhuǎn)變，但他發(fā)現(xiàn)文化概念本身，以及該時(shí)代的其他重要概念，如階級(jí)，工業(yè)，民主和藝術(shù)，是他所分析的文化轉(zhuǎn)變的產(chǎn)物（當(dāng)然這些概念也被注入了新的含義）。這些轉(zhuǎn)變不僅使文化概念流行起來(lái)，而且同時(shí)改變了它的含義。我相信，類似的過(guò)程標(biāo)志著技術(shù)這一關(guān)鍵詞在詞典中的出現(xiàn)，可以被我們用來(lái)繪制當(dāng)代社會(huì)和文化變化特征。

????But how, then, are we to identify the specific changes that prompted the emergence of technology - the concept, the word, the purported thing itself? My assumption is that those changes, whatever they were, created a semantic - indeed, a conceptual - void, which is to say, an awareness of cer tain novel developments in society and culture for which no adequate name had yet become available. It was this void, presumably, that the word technology, in its new and extended meaning, eventually would fill. It would prove to be preferable - a more apt signifier - for the new agents of change than any of its precursors, received terms such as the mechanic (or useful or practical or industrial) arts, or invention, improvement, machine, machinery, or mechanism. In a seminal essay of 1829, Thomas Carlyle had posed a vari ant of my question: if one had to sum up the oncoming age in a word, he asked, what might it be? His unequivocal answer was: machinery. "It is the Age of Machinery," he wrote, "in every outward and inward sense of that word."5 During the next half century, however, machinery - like the alter natives just mentioned - turned out to be unsuitable. But why? Why did technology prove to be preferable? To answer the question, we need to identify the specific character of the concurrent changes in the mechanic arts not only the changes within those arts, but also the changes in the interrelations between them and the rest of society and culture.

????但是，我們?nèi)绾尾拍茏R(shí)別出促使技術(shù)出現(xiàn)的具體轉(zhuǎn)變，即概念，詞語(yǔ)，所聲稱的事物本身？我的假設(shè)是，無(wú)論這些改變是什么，都造成了語(yǔ)義上的，當(dāng)然也是概念上的空洞，也就是說(shuō)，我們意識(shí)到了社會(huì)和文化中某些新穎的發(fā)展，而尚無(wú)適當(dāng)?shù)拿Q。正是這種空洞，以至于技術(shù)一詞在其新造和擴(kuò)展的含義中最終將被填補(bǔ)?！癟echnology”一詞，相比于任何先于其存在的詞語(yǔ)或者其所汲取意義的詞語(yǔ)，諸如mechanic（or useful or practical or industrial）arts機(jī)械（或者實(shí)用，實(shí)踐或者工業(yè)）藝術(shù)，或invention發(fā)明，improvement改善，machine，machinery或mechanism（這三者在中文里都是機(jī)械，但有些微的不同，后文會(huì)通過(guò)英文區(qū)分）。在1829年的開(kāi)創(chuàng)性論文中，托馬斯·卡萊爾提出了一個(gè)我的問(wèn)題的變體：如果有人必須用一個(gè)詞來(lái)概括即將到來(lái)的時(shí)代，他會(huì)問(wèn)，這可能是什么？他的明確回答是：機(jī)械machinery。他寫道：“這是機(jī)械時(shí)代，從這個(gè)詞的外部和內(nèi)部意義皆是如此?！?然而，在下半個(gè)世紀(jì)，machinery一詞，就像剛才提到所有詞語(yǔ)選項(xiàng)，被認(rèn)為是不合適的。但為什么？為什么technology一詞更可?。繛榱嘶卮疬@個(gè)問(wèn)題，我們需要確定與機(jī)械藝術(shù)同時(shí)發(fā)生的變化之特征，不僅僅是這些藝術(shù)內(nèi)部的變化，而且還要確定它們與社會(huì)其他部分和文化之間的相互關(guān)系的變化。

????As for the hazardous character of the concept of technology, here I need only say that I am not thinking about weaponry or the physical damage wrought by the use of any particular technologies. The hazards I have in mind are conceptual, not physical. They stem from the meanings conveyed by the concept technology itself, and from the peculiar role it enables us to confer on the mechanic arts as an ostensibly discrete entity - one capable of becoming a virtually autonomous, all-encompassing agent of change.

????至于技術(shù)這一概念的危害，在這里我只想說(shuō)我不是在考慮使用任何特定技術(shù)造成的武器裝備或物理?yè)p害。我想到的危害是概念上的，而非物理上的。它們?cè)从诟拍罴夹g(shù)本身所傳達(dá)的含義，并源于它使我們能夠?qū)C(jī)械藝術(shù)作為一種表面上離散的實(shí)體來(lái)賦予其藝術(shù)的特質(zhì)-一個(gè)能夠成為幾乎自主的，包羅萬(wàn)象的變革推動(dòng)者。

?

The Mechanic Arts and the Changing Conception of Progress

機(jī)械藝術(shù)與進(jìn)步觀念的轉(zhuǎn)變

?

????By the 1840s, several of the developments that contributed to the emergence of the concept of technology had become apparent in America. They fall into two categories, ideological and substantive: first, changes in the prevailing conception of the mechanic arts, and second, the material development of the machinery itself, and of the institutional setting from which it emerged. As a reference point for both kinds of change, and for early traces of the semantic void that eventually was to be filled by the concept of technology, here is the peroration of a ceremonial speech delivered by Senator Daniel Webster at the dedication of a new section of the Northern Railroad in Lebanon, New Hampshire, on 17 November 1847:

????到1840年代，促成技術(shù)概念出現(xiàn)的幾項(xiàng)發(fā)展在美國(guó)變得顯而易見(jiàn)。 它們分為意識(shí)形態(tài)的和實(shí)質(zhì)性的兩大類：第一，機(jī)械藝術(shù)的普遍觀念的變化，第二，機(jī)械本身的物質(zhì)發(fā)展以及由此產(chǎn)生的制度環(huán)境。 作為這兩種變化的參考點(diǎn)，以及最終被技術(shù)概念所填補(bǔ)的語(yǔ)義空缺的早期痕跡，以下是參議員丹尼爾·韋伯斯特在1847年11月17日對(duì)新罕布什爾州黎巴嫩北部鐵路新橋段建設(shè)完成的致辭：

????It is an extraordinary era in which we live. It is altogether new. The world has seen nothing ????like it before. I will not pretend, no one can pretend, to discern the end; but everybody ????knows that the age is remarkable for scientific research into the heavens, the earth, and ????what is beneath the earth; and perhaps more remarkable still for the application of this ????scientific research to the pursuits of life. The ancients saw nothing like it. The moderns?? ????have seen nothing like it till the present generation solid land traversed by steam power, ????and intelligence communicated by electricity. Truly this is almost a miraculous era. What is ????before us no one can say, what is upon us no one can hardly realize. The progress of the ????age has almost outstripped human belief; the future is known only to Omniscience.

? ? ? ? 這是我們生活的非凡時(shí)代。這是全新的。以前世界上從未見(jiàn)過(guò)這樣的事情。我不會(huì)假裝，沒(méi)人能假裝知曉其結(jié)局。但是每個(gè)人都知道，對(duì)于研究天堂，大地以及地下的事物而言，這個(gè)時(shí)代是非凡的。對(duì)于這項(xiàng)科學(xué)研究在追求生活中的應(yīng)用而言，也許仍然非常引人注目。古人從未見(jiàn)過(guò)。直到當(dāng)下一代的土地可由蒸汽動(dòng)力橫渡，智慧通過(guò)電力進(jìn)行交流（電報(bào)），現(xiàn)代人才看到了類似這樣的東西。確實(shí)，這幾乎是一個(gè)奇跡時(shí)代。沒(méi)有人能說(shuō)在我們面前的是什么，沒(méi)人能意識(shí)到。時(shí)代的進(jìn)步幾乎超越了人類的信念。未來(lái)會(huì)怎樣只有無(wú)所不知的神才能知曉。

????Perhaps the most significant ideological development that the emergence of technology eventually would ratify, as implied by Webster’s grandiloquent tribute to the progress of the age, is a new respect for the power of innovations in the useful arts to transform prevailing ideas about the world. When he singles out the railroad and the telegraph as embodiments of the progress of the age, he in effect confirms a subtle but important modification of the received Enlightenment view of progress. To be sure, the idea of progress had been closely bound up, from its inception, with the accelerating rate of scientific and mechanical innovation. By the time of Webster's speech, however, the idea oí progress had become the fulcrum of a comprehensive worldview effecting the sacralization of science and the mechanic arts, and creating a modern equivalent of the creation myths of premodern cultures. Two centuries earlier, the concept of progress had served, in a com mon place, literal sense, to describe incremental advances in explicitly bounded enterprises like the development of new scientific instruments say, for example, the microscope or telescope. But as more and more specific instances of progress of that sort occurred - progress in that particularized, circumscribed sense of the word - the reach of the idea gradually was extended to encompass the entire, all-encompassing course of human events. By the time of the French and American revolutions, in other words, history itself was conceived as a record of the steady, cumulative, continuous expansion of human knowledge of - and power over - nature. Thus the future course of history might be expected to culminate in a more or less universal improvement in the conditions of human existence.

????韋伯斯特對(duì)時(shí)代發(fā)展的雄辯宣稱，技術(shù)的出現(xiàn)所導(dǎo)致的最重大的意識(shí)形態(tài)發(fā)展，是人們對(duì)實(shí)用藝術(shù)創(chuàng)新力量的新型崇拜改變了當(dāng)今世界的觀念。當(dāng)他特別提到鐵路和電報(bào)作為時(shí)代進(jìn)步的體現(xiàn)時(shí)，他實(shí)際上肯定了一種從啟蒙運(yùn)動(dòng)的進(jìn)步觀點(diǎn)而來(lái)的微妙但十分重要的修正?？梢源_定的是，從一開(kāi)始，進(jìn)步思想就與科學(xué)和機(jī)械創(chuàng)新的加速發(fā)展緊密地聯(lián)系在一起。然而，在韋伯斯特發(fā)表演講之時(shí)，進(jìn)步思想已然成為了一種全面世界觀的支點(diǎn)，這種世界觀影響了科學(xué)和機(jī)械藝術(shù)的圣化，并創(chuàng)造了與前現(xiàn)代文化的創(chuàng)造神話相近的現(xiàn)代觀念。在兩個(gè)世紀(jì)之前，進(jìn)步的概念通常用字面意義來(lái)描述明確界定企業(yè)的漸進(jìn)式進(jìn)步，例如新型科學(xué)儀器的開(kāi)發(fā)，例如顯微鏡或望遠(yuǎn)鏡。但是，隨著越來(lái)越多的此類具體情況的發(fā)生（即在字眼的特定，限定的意義上的進(jìn)步），概念的囊括范圍逐漸擴(kuò)大，涵蓋了人類事件的整個(gè)過(guò)程。換句話說(shuō)，到法國(guó)和美國(guó)革命之時(shí)，歷史本身被認(rèn)為是人類對(duì)自然的認(rèn)識(shí)和對(duì)自然的掌控的穩(wěn)定，累積，持續(xù)擴(kuò)展的記錄。因此，未來(lái)的歷史進(jìn)程將被預(yù)測(cè)為人類生存條件不斷的普遍改善。

????But the radical thinkers who led the way in framing this master narrative of progress - Condorcet and Turgot, Paine and Priestley, Franklin and Jefferson - did not, like Webster, unreservedly equate human progress with the advance of the mechanic arts. They were committed republicans, political revolutionists, and although they celebrated mechanical innovation, they celebrated it only as the means of achieving progress; the true and only reliable measure of progress, as they saw it, was humanity's step-by-step liberation from aristocratic, ecclesiastical, and monarchic oppression, and the institution of more just, peaceful societies based on the consent of the governed. What requires emphasis is the republican thinkers' uncompromising insistence that advances in science and the mechanic arts are valuable chiefly as a means of arriving at social and political ends.

????但是，引領(lǐng)建構(gòu)這種進(jìn)步敘事框架的激進(jìn)思想家，Condorcet和Turgot，Paine和Priestley，F(xiàn)ranklin和Jefferson，和Webster不同，毫無(wú)保留地拒絕將人類的進(jìn)步與機(jī)械藝術(shù)的發(fā)展等同起來(lái)。他們是共和黨人，是政治革命家，盡管他們贊揚(yáng)機(jī)械創(chuàng)新，但他們贊揚(yáng)機(jī)械創(chuàng)新僅限于作為實(shí)現(xiàn)進(jìn)步的手段。在他們眼中，真正且唯一可靠的進(jìn)步衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是人類逐步擺脫貴族，教會(huì)和君主制的壓迫，并在政府的同意下建立更公正，和平的社會(huì)。需要強(qiáng)調(diào)的是共和黨思想家們堅(jiān)定不移的堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為，科學(xué)和機(jī)械藝術(shù)的進(jìn)步作為達(dá)到社會(huì)和政治目的的主要手段是有很寶貴的。

????By Webster's time, however, that distinction already was losing much its force. This was partly due to the presumed success of the republican revolutions, hence to a certain political complacency reinforced by the rapid growth of the immensely productive and lucrative capitalist system of manufactures. Thus, for example, Senator Webster, whose most influential constituents were factory owners, merchants, and financiers, did not regard innovations in the mechanic arts as merely instrumental - a technical means of arriving at social and political goals. He identified his interests with those of the company's directors and stockholders, and as he saw it, therefore, wealth-producing innovations like the railroad represented a socially transformative power of such immense scope and promise as to be a virtual embodiment - a perfect icon - of human progress.

????然而，到韋伯斯特時(shí)代，這種區(qū)分已經(jīng)在很大程度上失勢(shì)。這部分是由于共和黨的革命成功，帶來(lái)了具有巨大的生產(chǎn)力和利潤(rùn)回報(bào)的資本主義生產(chǎn)體系的迅速發(fā)展，而增強(qiáng)了某種政治上的自滿情緒。因此，例如，韋伯斯特參議員影響最多的支持者的是工廠所有者，商人和金融家，他們并不認(rèn)為機(jī)械藝術(shù)的創(chuàng)新僅僅是工具性的，而是實(shí)現(xiàn)社會(huì)和政治目標(biāo)的技術(shù)性手段。韋伯斯特將自己的利益與公司董事和股東的利益相提并論，因此在他看來(lái)，諸如鐵路之類的創(chuàng)造財(cái)富的創(chuàng)新代表了相當(dāng)巨大范圍內(nèi)的社會(huì)變革力量，并有望成為人類進(jìn)步的虛擬的體現(xiàn)和完美的標(biāo)志。

????Thus the new entrepreneurial elite for whom Webster spoke was to a large extent relieved of its tacit obligation to carry out the republican political mandate. Consider, for example, the Boston Associates - the merchants who launched the Lowell textile industry. They, to be sure, were concerned about the inhumane conditions created by the factory system - and they surely wanted to be good stewards of their wealth - but they assumed that they could fulfill their republican obligations by acts of private philanthropy.8 They believed that innovations in the mechanic arts could be relied upon, in the long run, to result in progress and prosperity for all. Their confidence in the inherently progressive influence of the new machine was reinforced, in their view, by the distinctive material tangibility of the machines - their omnipresence as physical, visible, sensibly accessible objects. In the ordinary course of their operations, accordingly, the new factories and machines unavoidably disseminated the ideology of social progress to all who saw and heard them. As John Stuart Mill acutely observed, the mere sight of a potent machine like the steam locomotive in the landscape wordlessly inculcated the notion that the present was an improvement on the past, and that the future promised to be so wondrous as to be "known," in Webster's high-flown idiom, "only to Omniscience”.

????因此，韋伯斯特所代表的新的企業(yè)家精英在很大程度上免除了其履行共和黨政治任務(wù)的默示義務(wù)(tacit obligation)。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，波士頓聯(lián)營(yíng)公司（Boston Associates），即發(fā)起洛厄爾(Lowell）紡織工業(yè)的商人，可以肯定他們擔(dān)心工廠制度所創(chuàng)造的非人道條件。他們當(dāng)然想成為自己財(cái)富的好管家，但他們認(rèn)為自己可以通過(guò)私人慈善行為履行共和義務(wù)。他們相信，從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，可以依靠機(jī)械藝術(shù)的創(chuàng)新來(lái)為所有人帶來(lái)進(jìn)步和繁榮。在他們看來(lái)，機(jī)器材料的獨(dú)特有形感增強(qiáng)了他們對(duì)新型機(jī)器固有的漸進(jìn)式影響的信心，因?yàn)樗麄儫o(wú)所不能，它們是物理的，可見(jiàn)的，可感知的物體。因此，在他們的日常經(jīng)營(yíng)過(guò)程中，新的工廠和機(jī)器不可避免地向看到和聽(tīng)到他們的所有人傳播了社會(huì)進(jìn)步的意識(shí)形態(tài)。正如約翰·斯圖亞特·密爾（John Stuart Mill）所敏銳地觀察到的那樣，僅僅看到一臺(tái)強(qiáng)大的機(jī)器，例如風(fēng)景秀麗的蒸汽機(jī)車，就無(wú)語(yǔ)地灌輸了這樣一種觀念，即現(xiàn)在是對(duì)過(guò)去的改進(jìn)，而未來(lái)則有望，像韋伯斯特常說(shuō)的，如此奇妙地“只有全能之神才能知曉”。

????But in the 1840s the blurring of the distinction between mechanical means and political ends also provoked an ideological backlash. To a vocal minority of dissident artists and intellectuals, the worshipful view of mate rial progress was symptomatic of moral negligence and political regression. Thus Henry Thoreau, who was conducting his experiment at the pond in 1847, the year Webster gave his speech, writes in Walden:

????但是在1840年代，技術(shù)作為手段和政治目的之間的模糊區(qū)分也引發(fā)了意識(shí)形態(tài)上的強(qiáng)烈反抗。對(duì)于少數(shù)持不同政見(jiàn)的藝術(shù)家和知識(shí)分子來(lái)說(shuō)，對(duì)物質(zhì)進(jìn)步的崇拜觀點(diǎn)是道德過(guò)失和政治回歸的征兆。 因此，在1847年即韋伯斯特發(fā)表講話的那年，在池塘進(jìn)行實(shí)驗(yàn)的亨利·梭羅在瓦爾登寫道：

????There is an illusion about … [modern improvements]; there is not always a positive advance …. Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end.

????關(guān)于……[現(xiàn)代改善]有一種幻想；并不總是會(huì)有積極的進(jìn)展……。 我們的發(fā)明不會(huì)成為漂亮的玩具，這只會(huì)使我們的注意力從嚴(yán)肅的事情上轉(zhuǎn)移開(kāi)。它們只是為了達(dá)到不改善的目的的改進(jìn)手段。

????And in Moby Dick (1851), Melville, after having Ishmael, his narrator, pay tribute to Captain Ahab's preternatural intellect and his mastery of the complex business of whaling, has the crazy captain acknowledge the hazards he courts by placing his technical proficiency in the service of his irrational purpose: "Now, in his heart, Ahab had some glimpse of this, namely, all my means are sane, my motive and my object mad."

????在《白鯨記》（Moby Dick，1851年）中，梅爾維爾（Melville）讓敘述者伊什梅爾（Ishmael）向亞哈船長(zhǎng)（Ahab）的超自然才智和對(duì)復(fù)雜捕鯨業(yè)務(wù)的精通致敬之后，這位瘋狂的船長(zhǎng)認(rèn)識(shí)到他將自己的技術(shù)能力用于達(dá)成非理性目的之危害： “現(xiàn)在，在亞哈心中隱約的感受到，我（亞哈）的一切手段都是理智的，我的動(dòng)機(jī)和我的目標(biāo)是瘋狂的?！?/p>

????This critical view of the new industrial arts marks the rise of an adversary culture that would reject the dominant faith in the advance of the mechanical arts as a sufficient, self-justifying, social goal. Indeed, a more or less direct line of influence is traceable from the intellectual dissidents of the 1840s to the widespread 1960s rebellion against established institutions, from, for example, Thoreau's 1849 recommendation, in "Civil Disobedience," to "Let your life be a counter- friction to stop the machine" to Mario Savio's 1964 exhortation to Berkeley students: "You have got to put your bodies upon the [machine] and make it stop!" From its inception, the countercultural movement of the 1960s was seen - and saw itself - as a revolt against an increasingly "technocratic" society.

????這種對(duì)新興工業(yè)藝術(shù)的批判性觀點(diǎn)，標(biāo)志著一種拒絕先前的機(jī)械藝術(shù)發(fā)展主導(dǎo)信念，即不將機(jī)械藝術(shù)視為充分自明的社會(huì)目標(biāo)的敵對(duì)文化。當(dāng)然，我們可以追溯到從1840年代的政見(jiàn)不同的知識(shí)分子，到1960年代大范圍的對(duì)既有教育機(jī)構(gòu)的叛亂這一條線，說(shuō)明該文化的某種程度的影響，例如，梭羅（Thoreau）在1849年的《公民抗命》中的建議，到“讓你的生活成為一種停止機(jī)器的對(duì)抗摩擦力”， Mario Savio在1964年對(duì)伯克利大學(xué)學(xué)生的勸誡：“您必須將身體置于[機(jī)器]之上并使其停止！”從一開(kāi)始，人們就將1960年代的反文化運(yùn)動(dòng)視為反抗日益增長(zhǎng)的“技術(shù)官僚”社會(huì)。

?未完待續(xù)~