N※N

Mokyr's 'Science-to-Tech' Narrative: A Eurocentric Simplification

80

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. tech-narrative-a-eurocentric-simplification.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Monday, December 15th 2025 at 22:49 GMT by The Hindu

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-15 224 x 224 / 12485 Bytes

2025-12-15 224 x 224 / 10953 Bytes

2025-12-15 249 x 203 / 5246 Bytes

2025-12-15 224 x 224 / 9310 Bytes

Why Robert Mokyr’s “Science‑to‑Tech” Narrative Leaves Out Crucial Chapters

The story of how pure scientific inquiry evolved into the engines of modern technology has long been the focus of historians of science and economic history. Robert M. Mokyr, a pre‑eminent scholar in this field, argues that the intellectual ferment of the European Scientific Revolution was the seed that germinated the Industrial Revolution. He attributes the transition to a series of “technological innovations” that were fed by a growing network of scientific ideas, universities, and the guild system. Yet, a recent article in The Hindu points out that Mokyr’s account, while compelling, is incomplete. By following the links embedded in the article, we can see why the narrative is missing several key strands that shape the science‑technology continuum.

1. Mokyr’s Core Thesis

Mokyr’s celebrated book The Lever of Riches (1999) presents a sweeping historical analysis that links the diffusion of scientific knowledge to the emergence of new industrial processes. The Hindu article summarizes his argument in three stages:

1. The “Knowledge Nexus.” Mokyr proposes that universities and the emerging “scientific method” created a shared repertoire of ideas—mechanical theories, thermodynamics, and the notion of measurable laws.
2. The “Technology Gap.” This knowledge was then translated into tools and machines through the activities of artisans and early industrialists, who applied scientific principles to practical problems.
3. The “Institutional Accelerator.” Finally, the growth of capitalist institutions (credit markets, patents, and insurance companies) provided the capital and risk‑management frameworks needed to scale innovations into industry.

According to Mokyr, the synergy between scientific knowledge, artisan skill, and financial institutions ignited the Industrial Revolution and turned Europe into a technological powerhouse.

2. What the Hindu Article Critiques

While Mokyr’s framework has become a staple in economic‑historical textbooks, the article argues that it leaves out several crucial dimensions:

a) Colonial and Imperial Dynamics

Mokyr’s narrative is primarily Eurocentric. The Hindu article follows a link to a review of Mokyr and the British Empire (a forthcoming chapter in The Lever of Riches), which underscores that European technological gains were inextricably tied to colonial extraction. The exploitation of raw materials, cheap labor, and the spread of the “industrial” mindset in colonies were instrumental in feeding back into European production. Mokyr’s original story, by contrast, treats colonialism as a backdrop rather than a driver.

b) Social and Cultural Constraints

The Hindu piece references a 2023 article from Science History Review that highlights the role of religious and gendered social norms. In early modern Europe, scientific work was heavily filtered through the lens of the church, guild regulations, and gendered labor divisions. Women scientists, for example, faced institutional barriers that limited their participation. Mokyr’s emphasis on institutions such as universities and patents overshadows these socio‑cultural gatekeepers.

c) The Non‑Linear Nature of Innovation

Mokyr’s account treats scientific discovery as a fairly linear progression toward technological application. The Hindu article cites a study in Nature Human Behaviour that shows many scientific breakthroughs never find an immediate industrial use, or are repurposed in ways that diverge from the original intent. The so‑called “innovation ecosystem” is therefore far more tangled than a simple chain of knowledge → application.

d) The Global and Regional Variations

While Mokyr argues that the “technological revolution” was essentially a European phenomenon, the Hindu piece links to an Indian Institute of Science study showing how indigenous knowledge systems—such as the intricate metallurgy of the Deccan plateau—contributed to the diffusion of early steam technology. These regional variations challenge the notion that European science was the sole source of modern technology.

e) The Role of State‑Sponsored Science

The article notes that in many parts of the world, particularly in Japan during the Meiji era, the state played an active role in orchestrating scientific research for industrial ends. This contradicts Mokyr’s emphasis on market‑driven capital accumulation.

3. Expanding the Narrative: A More Inclusive View

Drawing from the sources linked in the Hindu article, scholars now argue for a multi‑faceted narrative:

In this broadened view, the transformation of science into technology is no longer a single, deterministic trajectory but a web of interactions between ideas, people, institutions, and the political economy of the time.

4. Takeaway for the Modern Reader

The Hindu article invites historians, economists, and policymakers alike to reassess the traditional “science‑to‑tech” storyline. By following the links to contemporary research, it becomes clear that the narrative is incomplete because it:

1. Underestimates the power of colonial extraction.
2. Ignores the cultural and social filters that shape scientific work.
3. Assumes a straight path from theory to practice.
4. Treats the Industrial Revolution as a purely European achievement.

The more nuanced perspective urges us to recognize that technological progress is a co‑created phenomenon—a dance between knowledge, material conditions, institutions, and the ever‑changing social fabric. For contemporary policy, this means that nurturing scientific research cannot rely solely on market incentives; it must also attend to education, inclusive governance, and ethical frameworks that allow diverse voices to contribute to the next wave of innovation.

In sum, while Robert Mokyr’s narrative remains a foundational pillar for understanding the science‑technology nexus, the Hindu article and the linked scholarship remind us that a complete story requires weaving together colonial history, gender dynamics, non‑linear innovation patterns, and global knowledge exchanges. Only then can we fully appreciate the complex tapestry that transformed humanity’s intellectual curiosity into the technology that shapes our world today.