Response and Reflection

Kranzberg, M.  (1986).  Technology and History:  "Kranzberg's Laws",  Technology and Culture, 27, pp. 544-60.

I have to admit that I read this article after reading four other articles published latter in Technology and Culture because the date of this article seemed less relevant and timely to me.  However, after making my way through Kranzberg's "Technology and History: Kranzberg's Laws", many of the points brought up in the latter articles made more sense because this article provided a solid basis for understanding the context of the history of technology.  This article outlines the basis for Kranzberg's work in the development of the history of technology and vital importance of context in examining technology developments over time.

Kranzberg's first law is that "technology is neither good, nor bad; nor is it neutral".  He uses the example of DDT, a pesticide shown to have adversely influenced our food chain. In this United States, this pesticide was removed from the market, while in India it remained in production because it saved lives in the context of their country.  This emphasizes the point that context makes all the difference in evaluating technology.  He emphasizes the historian's role of analyzing the short-term versus the long-term, and what might have been versus what actually happened.

Kranzberg's second law is that "necessity is the mother of invention".  I have to wonder whether this adage is actually his words or something carried down from centuries of wisdom.  I use this phrase fairly often myself, and have always pondered its origins.  Kranzberg's point is that one technological innovation will spur a necessity for others.  I see this concept in almost any of computer technology.  The application of a software patch or a browser plug-in is the act of one innovation necessitating the existence of another.  Many other examples exist, but the point is made.  Did Kranzberg actually create this meaningful statement?

Kranzberg's third law is that "technology comes in packages: big and small."  The underlying point is that technology can be composed of a number of related subsystems that behave synergistically to produce the desired outcome.  This concept is analogous to an office suite, such as the Microsoft office suite.  This technology can be sold in parts, but is often sold in bundles to serve the needs of users - a word processor alone is insufficient today to serve the needs of our knowledge workforce.  This also reminds me of the socio-technical framework, which is used in management information systems research to study and control change.

Kranzberg's fourth law deviates from the first three, but is nevertheless, just as true in society: although technology may be a prime issue in many public issues, nontechnical factors take precedence in technology policy decisions.  This concept also reminds me of the socio-technical system and the change process. This framework accounts for the importance of addressing the social side, as well as the technical side of change.  It also reminds me of the systems analysis and design process and the importance of reducing decisions down to dollars and cents as opposed to those that are political in nature.  Politics takes precedence in most decisions - unfortunately, not always to the benefit of mankind.

Kranzberg's fifth law is "All history is relevant, but the history of technology is most relevant."  Kranzberg spends a lengthy amount of time discussing the vital role of the history of technology in society by providing current examples of how the field contributes to everyday life.  I suspect he spends more time on this law because it requires the most convincing argument.  As a student of technology, I completely agree with his point about he importance of studying the history of technology and its influence in almost every aspect of our lives.  My greater concern is that many individuals will disregard this law, speaking of the negative stigmatism associated with the study and importance of history in society.

Kranzberg's sixth and final law is "technology is a very human activity - and so is the history of technology."  This law is a little redundant for obvious reasons.  If technology is a very human activity, than its history must also be a very human activity.  Regardless, I think Kranzberg is trying to make the point that we often believe that technology is independent of any human element, but this is far from the truth.  Technology is completely dependent on humans because technology is nothing more than a tool to serve our will.  The definition of an information system includes humans as part of its characteristics: hardware, software, processes, information, and people. Technology itself is useless without the human element.

Because I have found Kranzberg's perceptive intriguing and his writing style easy to comprehend, I intend to read his previous works to gain more of his perspective.  I only hope there is a more recent predecessor that has a similar perspective and the powerful communication skills as he has.