| |
Response and Reflection
Hounshell, D. A.
(1995). Hughesian history of technology and Chandlerian business
history: Parallels, departures, and critics. History and
Technology, 12, pp. 205-24.
I have to admit that this was a little difficult to read because I
really had no idea what the author was talking about in terms of all
the texts and people at first. I understood that he introduced
both Thomas Hughes, a historian of technology, and Alfred Chandler, a
historian of business, but the author kept referencing a bunch of books
that I have never read or even heard of, so if he was trying to say
something important there, I did not get it. After the first
couple pages, he talks about the personal and professional relationship
between Chandler and Hughes. Then, his subsequent discussion
explains who the people are and what texts were about as they relate to
both Chandler and Hughes. This made a lot more sense, obviously.
Two of the texts mentioned I am going to have to read after I graduate
:-) ... Chandler's The Visible Hand (clearly making
reference to the Invisible Hand referenced in Adam Smith's book the
Wealth of Nations) and Strategy and Structure. I had actually
read some of Chandler's work while working on my MBA, and we read a
paper that addressed what was required first for an organization to be
successful: strategy or structure.
The next aspect he addresses in determinism which appears to be a
pretty important issue in this line of research because two other
articles from this section also discuss technological determinism.
Hounshell makes reference to to David Noble's (I am assuming this
is the same guy that wrote the article from the other section) work and
perspective on determinism. I cannot say that I completely agree
with what Noble is saying about technology coming under the conscious
control of human authority in the specific form of private corporate
capital, but I understand his perspective. Things are more
complicated than that.
Technology does allow for better control in terms of management, but
that is not to say that technology deskills workers or degrades the
substance and meaning of work. Sometimes technology leads to
workers having to gain new skills in different areas. This is not
the fault of anyone or any technology, but rather the implicit nature
and evolution of work. Working conditions in the United States
today - I am pretty sure - is much better than it was 100 years ago
when we were still an agrarian economy. Noble makes too many
blanket statements. Though, he does bring up some good
points.
Another thing I found very interesting is his discussion about the
emergence of technology becoming a discipline as its own - a seperation
from skill component. This leads to a discussion on the method of
the social construction of technology. I wondered whether there
was a systematic method to this line of inquiry, so this answered that
question farily well. The article concludes by talking about a
convergence of work on both technology and business history. I
found that pretty interesting, too.
So, this article started off really bad because I had no idea what he
was talking about, but ended really well! I am glad I kept
reading. |