The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850-1940 by Daniel R. Headrick

by Daniel R. Headrick

This penetrating examination of a paradox of colonial rule shows how the massive transfers of technology--including equipment, techniques, and experts--from the European imperial powers to their colonies in Asia and Africa resulted not in industrialization but in underdevelopment. Examining the most important technologies--shipping and railways, telegraphs and wireless, urban water supply and sewage disposal, economic botany and plantation agriculture, irrigation, and mining and metallurgy--Headrick provides a new perspective on colonial economic history and reopens the debate on the roots of Asian and African underdevelopment.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

Paperback

First published March 10, 1988

About the author

A specialist in the history of international relations, technology, and the environment, Daniel R. Headrick is professor emeritus of social science and history at Roosevelt University.

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just read this a second time through and raised my rating from 3 to 4 stars. I think the argument, indeed the premise, is much more satisfactory than Headrick's earlier book, "The Tools of Empire," in which he suggests that European technological development explains the scramble for empire after 1870. This book examines a different dimension of technology and empire: why the massive transfers of technology from Europe to the rest of the world did not (in most cases anyway) lead to industrialization but rather to underdevelopment. Headrick argues that, on the whole, technology was restricted mostly to Europeans, despite its wide geographical diffusion. Technical education was largely largely withheld from indigenous peoples and technical entrepreneurship was discouraged in colonial societies. In this way, he argues (not always without pitfalls), the advance of capitalism could establish indigenous roots in a country like Japan while it came slow to a colonized country like India. There are inevitably many holes to poke in such a sweeping generalization, but I think Headrick does a good job of setting up a clear line of investigation.

[J.M. Hushour · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not as satisfying as Heady's "Tools of Empire" and overlong. Heady looks at technology diffusion and the spread of specialized education and lack thereof in European colonies. The argument is simple: Imperialists (mostly the British in India are discussed) didn't want those pesky brown people learning how to do stuff because then they might revolt. But those resourceful heathens often found ways to do it anyway. Good bits on railroads and mining; the chapter on education, really what should have been the meat of the book, is wanting.

[Nikolaj Andersen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Insightsful and well-written, but way too long, making it at times really boring. And this might just be me as a political scientist and not a historian, but I also missed more general reflections compared to the more specific case studies (which there are plenty of).

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Headrick's book is a bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing, in terms of theories of history. Much historical research today and for the last 40-50 years is essentially acting as a corrective to history that focuses on the actions of politicians, leaders, and white men in general. People who study the history of technology, the history of disease, history of labor relations, history of the environment, history of gender, history of discourses, are all making that same argument: don't just focus on the people in power; there are lots of other factors involved, some of which are far more important.

By the end of *The Tentacles of Progress,* Headrick will not deny the importance of politics in the transfer of technology from imperial powers to their colonies. Politicians and leaders acted haphazardly, trying to balance an innate conservativism about sparking revolution in their colonies, while also trying to bolster their capabilities as an empire by increasing their economic capabilities and diversity. The balancing act, Headrick writes, led to an "intractable conflict," to which Britain (in particular) responded with "hesitant procrastination."

So this book starts as a book trying to look at something like the impact of technology on history, but eventually doubles back to asserting the primacy of politics. It is a bit of a reaction to the newer history.

I found the argument persuasive; my areas are the history of technology and disease, but for technology, at least, the actions of politicians seem to be very much at the center. (Definitely less so than with diseases, but not entirely.) This sort of book is useful in that sense.