MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1978589008 · doi:10.1353/tech.2005.0093

Gutenberg in Shanghai: Chinese Print Capitalism, 1876-1937 (review)

2005· article· en· W1978589008 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueTechnology and Culture · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueChinese history and philosophy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCapitalismChinaPrint cultureNewspaperStyle (visual arts)HistoryPrinting pressPublishingArt historyEconomic historyMedia studiesPolitical scienceSociologyLawArchaeologyPolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Gutenberg in Shanghai: Chinese Print Capitalism, 1876-1937 Anne Reinhardt (bio) Gutenberg in Shanghai: Chinese Print Capitalism, 1876-1937. By Christopher A. Reed. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2004. Pp. xvii+391. $85/$29.95. The Chinese invented wood-block printing during the Tang dynasty (618- 907 C.E.) and enjoyed a sophisticated print culture well before Johannes Gutenberg invented his printing press in Europe. In the nineteenth century, Westerners seeking profits and converts in China brought with them print technologies descended from Gutenberg's press. Christopher Reed's book examines the confrontation between these two print traditions in China's treaty ports during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Resisting the assumption that European-style printing presses would inevitably replace wood-block techniques, he investigates the accommodation [End Page 411] and adaptation of these technologies into a particularly Chinese form of print capitalism. Between the 1870s and the 1930s, Shanghai's printers adopted mechanized printing and modern organizational practices that allowed them to distribute new-style journals, newspapers, and textbooks to ever expanding audiences. The values and aesthetics of traditional Chinese print culture, however, significantly shaped their choices of technologies and techniques, and continued to exert an influence over Shanghai's printing and publishing, even into the twentieth century. Reed contends that Chinese print capitalism therefore represents a case distinct from both conventional histories of Western print capitalism and the best-known accounts of its development in non-Western contexts such as Benedict Andersen's Imagined Communities (1983). Reed first lays out the process through which Western print technologies were transferred to China. Western missionaries introduced a considerable range of such technologies to port cities in the early nineteenth century, but it was not until the 1870s that Chinese printers in Shanghai began to view the printing press as a plausible alternative to wood-block printing. At this time, Chinese printers found lithographic printing techniques best suited to reproducing calligraphy and reprinting traditional books in greater quantity and at lower cost than wood-block printing. By the late 1890s, these printers had begun to adopt letterpress printing to satisfy a rising demand for the quick delivery of news. By the first years of the twentieth century, Chinese-owned machine shops could repair and reproduce lithographic and letterpress printing machinery, breaking Shanghai printers' former dependence on foreign equipment and facilitating the diffusion of these technologies throughout China. Reed analyzes the social and institutional features of print capitalism that emerged among Shanghai's printers and publishers: the cooperation between reformist literati and industrial entrepreneurs as well as publishers' embrace of the trade association, the joint-stock firm, and intellectual property as ways to protect their investments in modern print technology. Finally, Reed examines the heyday of print capitalism in Shanghai through the activities of and competition among three of the largest publishing firms of the 1920s and 1930s. The focus on the technological, social, and business history of Shanghai's printing and publishing industries distinguishes Reed's book from a recent wave of studies of modern Chinese publishing that tend to focus on the cultural contributions of particular periodicals. His study is extraordinarily rich. Reed skillfully employs anecdote, fiction, and memoir to evoke the beliefs and dilemmas of those participating in Chinese print capitalism at all levels. Intertwined with his main argument are other narratives that underscore the ways in which the publishing industry was indeed a significant hub of multiple aspects of Chinese modernity. He considers, for [End Page 412] example, the significance of place in Chinese print capitalism by tracing the development of Shanghai's "Culture Street" (wenhua jie), where booksellers and publishers concentrated their businesses. He also traces the development of class polarizations in the printing industry, from evidence of exploitative relations between masters and apprentices in the early print-machine industry which anticipated the polarization of class relationships and the subsequent radicalization of print workers. One issue that is not fully addressed in this study is the relationship of Shanghai's print capitalism to the highly politicized terrain of Chinese capitalism under semicolonial conditions. Reed notes that publishing was the third largest area of Chinese investment after the cigarette and brocade-weaving industries...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,737
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,366

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,284
Écart entre enseignants0,275 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle