One of the criticisms I often hear of bad history is that it subscribes to a simplistic, linear understanding of scientific progression and technological advancement as if real life operated by the Civilization V tech tree. This kind of thinking often comes in the form of stuff like "The Chart" and "Well if the Inca just discovered The Wheel and Gunpowder, then they could've defeated the Spanish!" I understand that this is generally wrong because it is often Euro-centric and because technology isn't a simple linear progression from "primitive" to "more advanced" or whatever.
So my friend asked me: but surely there are instances where you can objectively argue that one group is more technologically advanced, right? If group X has gunpowder weapons while group Y is still using slingshots, then surely group X has more advanced technology, right?
I'm not sure what to think of this.
In general, talking about it in totalizing terms is usually misleading. As an example, take the Polynesians. On one hand, they produced neither ceramic or metal, and in that perspective they were comparable to Paleolithic populations. On the other hand, their shipbuilding and navigation were second to none and were highly skilled craftsmen with wood and shell. So where do they stand? It depends on how you weight the different factors, and that will ultimately be based on what you personally value.
On the other hand, it is possible to compare specific bits of technology and determine which one is better. So you might be able to compare pottery production in China and Europe in 1500 and say that Chinese ceramic was superior. You can thus use this to tell you something about the different ways that pottery was viewed and used in China and Europe, and a bit about their respective cultural values.
A really interesting case study in this can be found in Donald B Kraybill, The Riddle of Amish Culture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). In short, Kraybill looks at the Amish (primarily in Lancaster County, PA) and asks: why some technologies and not others? Why is it ok to ride in cars, but not to drive and own them? Why is a group telephone ok, but not telephone lines in each house?
His answer is fascinating. While most people would roll their eyes and say derogatory things about inherent irrationality and arbitrary-ness of the Amish people's technological choices, he argues that the Amish simply substitute social technology for traditional, mainstream American technology. That is to say, they favor, develop, and make use of technologies that further their own social goals as a community in place of what we consider "technology."
The car versus horse travel is a great example of this. While cars are a useful technology, using the horse for transportation means that people are more likely to stay in their home communities, and when they visit families or others, they are more likely to stay the night or at least really relish it. The telephone would disrupt Amish ways of life because then people could communicate without face-to-face interaction, which they value. Instead of having a central church, they rotate between community member's homes for their religious gatherings; in this way, everyone, even the bedridden, is visited routinely, hospitality is encouraged, and supervision of the community for moral and other failings happens on a more-or-less explicit level.
Kraybill's conclusion raises an interesting question: who is more technologically advanced? Mainstream America which embraces every new technology to the utmost only to bewail the social consequences in a never-ending pattern of doomsday prophesying-- or the Amish who have managed to craft a successful economic life while maintaining a community life and social fabric exactly as desired?
