In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

n o t e s Introduction • Technology and Culture, War and Peace 1. NHKProjectXseisakuhan,ProjectXchōsenshatachi(Tokyo:Nihonhōsōkyōkai,2000), 2: 14–52; and Rokuda Noboru and NHK Project X seisakuhan, Project X chōsenshatachi: Shūnen ga unda Shinkansen (Tokyo: Nihonhōsō kyōkai, 2002). 2. Stuart Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1994); Atsushi Akera, Calculating a Natural World: Scientists, Engineers, and Computers during the Rise of U.S. Cold War Research (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006); Paul N. Edwards, The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996); Alex Roland, “Technology and War: A Bibliographical Essay,” in Military Enterprise and Technological Change: Perspectives on the American Experience, ed. Merritt Roe Smith (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985), 347–79; Alex Roland, “Technology and War: The Historiographical Revolutions of the 1980s,” Technology and Culture 34 (1993): 117–34; Gabrielle Hecht, The Radiance of France: Nuclear Power and National Identity after World War II (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998); Edmund Russell, War and Nature: Fighting Humans and Insects with Chemicals from World War I to Silent Spring (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001); and Eric Schatzberg, Wings of Wood, Wings of Metal (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1998). 3. Thomas P. Hughes presents a masterly comparative work in Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1983); Eric Schatzberg, “Wooden Airplanes in World War II: National Comparisons and Symbolic Culture,” in Archimedes: New Studies in History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, vol. 3, Atmospheric Flight in the Twentieth Century, ed. Alex Roland and Peter Galison (Dordrecht , the Netherlands: Springer, 2000), 183–205; and Kevin McCormick, Engineers in Japan and Britain: Education, Training, and Employment (London: Routledge, 2000). 4. While the meanings of “military technology” could be understood relative to those of “nonweapons technology,” the line of demarcation between the two fields was often blurred. In the United States during the twentieth century, as Edmund Russell shows in his study about chemical warfare and pest control, the distinction between civilian and military was a binary, “false” construct amid a series of almost consecutive wars abroad. In some cases, the distinction depends on the users, situations, and purposes. If ex-military passengers discuss a plan on their commercial mobile telephones to retain control over their hijacked commercial airplane, the tool could be seen as a military communication 204 Notes to Pages 5–8 device. A better example involves state-sponsored, aerospace science and technology, to which one can refer as dual-use technology because it empowers both civilian and military industries. At least in the context of Japan, however, high-speed aerodynamics, that is, both theoretical and empirical studies of airflow as fast as the speed of sound, was strictly of military origin and application until defeat. It was a technology for war. Substantive applications of research and development in the field were confined to the creation of a highly advanced weapon, namely, military aircraft. Serious scientific inquiries in the field before 1945 qualitatively differed from the popular culture of “streamlining” that permeated Japan and the United States during the 1930s. In Japan before 1945, the trend meant fashionable technological artifacts, including “streamlined” tricycles for playful children, “streamlined” haircuts for the youth, and “streamlined” furniture for those who liked the new style. Furthermore, there are many examples of commercial applications of aerodynamics/hydrodynamics in the twenty-first century, ranging from golf balls, swimsuits, and racing cars. At least in Japan, this type of civilian application was strictly a postwar phenomenon. And Japan’s experience of defeat reconfigured the position of the field and their roles of the experts in it. 5. Renowned sociologist Karl Mannheim emphasized the importance of key historical events such as war and revolution that help shape a sociological generation. Not defined in biological terms and by no means monolithic, the sociological generation tends to share a common experience, memory, and view. Karl Mannheim, Essays on the Sociology of Culture (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1956); Philip Adams, Historical Sociology (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1982), 227–266; Howard Schuman and Cheryl Rieger, “Historical Analogies, Generational Effects, and Attitudes toward War,” American Sociological Review 57, no. 3 (1992): 315–326; and Jane Pilcher, “Mannheim’s Sociology of Generations: An Undervalued Legacy,” British Journal of Sociology 45, no. 3 (1994): 481–495; and Eric Ericson, Identity, Youth...

Share