3 ms·

I think that is overstating the relevance of the printing press vs existing power struggles, rivalries, discontent, etc. - it wasn't some sort of vacuum that th

I think that is overstating the relevance of the printing press vs existing power struggles, rivalries, discontent, etc. - it wasn't some sort of vacuum that the reformation happened in, for example. Religious schisms happened before the printing press, too. There was the Great Schism in 1054 in Christianity, for example.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
> it wasn't some sort of vacuum that the reformation happened in, for example. No, it wasn't. Wikipedia lists[0] over two dozen schisms that happened prior to Reformation. However, the capital R reformation was the big one, and the major reason it worked - why Luther succeeded where Hus failed a century earlier - was because of the printing press. It was print that allowed for Luther's treatises to rapidly spread among general population (Wikipedia cites some interesting claims here[1]), and across Europe. In today's terms, printing press is what allowed Reformation to get viral. This new technology is what made the revolution spread too fast for the Church to suppress it with methods that worked before. Of course, the Church survived, adapted, and embraced the printing press for its own goals too, like everyone else. But the adaptation period was a bloody one for Europe. And I only covered the religious aspects of the printing press's impact. There are similar stories to draw on more secular front, too. In fact, another general change printing introduced is to get regular folks more informed and involved in politics of their regions. That's a change for the better overall, too, but initially, it injected a lot of energy into socio-political systems that weren't used to it, leading to instability and more bloodshed before people got used to it and politics found a new balance. > existing power struggles, rivalries, discontent, etc. Those always exist, and stay in some form of equilibrium. Technology doesn't cause them - but what it does is disturb the old equilibrium, forcing society to find a new one, and this process historically often got violent. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_in_Christianity#Lists_of_Schisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_in_Christianity#Lists_o... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation#Spread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation#Spread - see e.g. footnote 28: "According to an econometric analysis by the economist Jared Rubin, "the mere presence of a printing press prior to 1500 increased the probability that a city would become Protestant in 1530 by 52.1 percentage points, Protestant in 1560 by 43.6 percentage points, and Protestant in 1600 by 28.7 percentage points."
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  The printing press was used a lot on "both sides" during the reformation and positioning of existing power holders mattered quite a bit (what if Luther had been removed by the powers that be, for example?). Yes, technology impacts social constructs and relationships but I think there is a tendency to overindex its effects (humans acting opportunistically vs technological change alone) as it in a way portrays humans and their interactions as more stable and deliberate (ie., the bad stuff wasn't humans but rather "caused" by technology).
- greentxt 2y ago
  ""It has been argued that the historiography of science is "riddled with Whiggish history"." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history

TeMPOraL 2y ago

> it wasn't some sort of vacuum that the reformation happened in, for example. No, it wasn't. Wikipedia lists[0] over two dozen schisms that happened prior to Reformation. However, the capital R reformation was the big one, and the major reason it worked - why Luther succeeded where Hus failed a century earlier - was because of the printing press. It was print that allowed for Luther's treatises to rapidly spread among general population (Wikipedia cites some interesting claims here[1]), and across Europe. In today's terms, printing press is what allowed Reformation to get viral. This new technology is what made the revolution spread too fast for the Church to suppress it with methods that worked before. Of course, the Church survived, adapted, and embraced the printing press for its own goals too, like everyone else. But the adaptation period was a bloody one for Europe. And I only covered the religious aspects of the printing press's impact. There are similar stories to draw on more secular front, too. In fact, another general change printing introduced is to get regular folks more informed and involved in politics of their regions. That's a change for the better overall, too, but initially, it injected a lot of energy into socio-political systems that weren't used to it, leading to instability and more bloodshed before people got used to it and politics found a new balance. > existing power struggles, rivalries, discontent, etc. Those always exist, and stay in some form of equilibrium. Technology doesn't cause them - but what it does is disturb the old equilibrium, forcing society to find a new one, and this process historically often got violent. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_in_Christianity#Lists_of_Schisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_in_Christianity#Lists_o... [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation#Spread https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation#Spread - see e.g. footnote 28: "According to an econometric analysis by the economist Jared Rubin, "the mere presence of a printing press prior to 1500 increased the probability that a city would become Protestant in 1530 by 52.1 percentage points, Protestant in 1560 by 43.6 percentage points, and Protestant in 1600 by 28.7 percentage points."

RandomLensman 2y ago
The printing press was used a lot on "both sides" during the reformation and positioning of existing power holders mattered quite a bit (what if Luther had been removed by the powers that be, for example?). Yes, technology impacts social constructs and relationships but I think there is a tendency to overindex its effects (humans acting opportunistically vs technological change alone) as it in a way portrays humans and their interactions as more stable and deliberate (ie., the bad stuff wasn't humans but rather "caused" by technology).
greentxt 2y ago
""It has been argued that the historiography of science is "riddled with Whiggish history"." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history