The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Partha Majumdar

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Partha Majumdar^*

Published in International Journal of Business and Economics Research (Volume 15, Issue 1)

Received: 22 January 2026 Accepted: 30 January 2026 Published: 9 February 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has created a polarised public response, oscillating between utopian visions and existential fear. This analysis refutes these extremes, arguing that such anxiety is not a new phenomenon but a recurring historical cycle associated with the externalisation of human faculties. By examining historical precedents, the text reframes the AI challenge as a manageable variable rather than an uncontrollable force. The Socratic critique of writing, which warned of cognitive atrophy from externalised memory, is presented as an ancient parallel to modern concerns about AI fostering superficial competence. Similarly, the 19th-century Luddite movement is reinterpreted not as an irrational opposition to technology, but as a rational response by skilled artisans to the deskilling of their labour and the degradation of product quality-an analogue to fears that AI will devalue human expertise. Further parallels from the 20th-century "calculator wars" in education illustrate how curricula shifted from rote computation to higher-order problem-solving. These historical examples collectively argue that technological disruptions compel a redefinition of human competence and create new opportunities, rather than simply leading to cognitive or economic decline. Building on this historical perspective, the analysis proposes that the antidote to technological anxiety is a disciplined, managerial approach grounded in rigorous contingency planning. Through corporate case studies-contrasting Kodak’s strategic inertia with Fujifilm’s successful diversification, alongside the proactive pivots of Intel and Netflix-the text illustrates that organisational resilience depends on the ability to critically reassess core capabilities and cannibalise legacy models when necessary. This evidence informs a comprehensive, tiered risk management framework designed for professionals and institutions. "Plan A" focuses on Mitigation and Integration, advocating a "Centaur" model in which humans and AI collaborate as distinct but complementary agents, preserving human authority and using cognitive forcing functions to prevent automation complacency. "Plan B," a Contingency and Diversification strategy, involves developing multi-skilled, "M-shaped" professionals and cultivating an "analogue hedge" in roles requiring physical presence or legal accountability. Finally, "Plan C" outlines a strategy for Resilience and Sovereignty, serving as a last resort against systemic failure through the development of technological sovereignty via locally controlled AI and the willingness to execute a radical pivot to entirely new sectors. The overarching thesis is that by establishing these explicit contingency plans, organisations can transform existential risk into a manageable operational procedure, navigating the AI revolution with strategic preparedness rather than reactive panic.

Published in	International Journal of Business and Economics Research (Volume 15, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12
Page(s)	8-17
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Historical Cycles of Technological Anxiety, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, Strategic Contingency Framework, Centaur Model, Capability Reassessment

References

[1]	Plato (1997) Phaedrus. In: Cooper JM, Hutchinson DS (eds) Plato: Complete Works. Trans Nehamas A, Woodruff P. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, pp 475–526.
[2]	Sparrow B, Liu J, Wegner DM (2011) Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science 333(6043): 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745
[3]	Ong WJ (1982) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Routledge, London and New York.
[4]	Eisenstein EL (1980) The printing press as an agent of change: Communications and cultural transformations in early modern Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[5]	Binfield K (ed) (2004) Writings of the Luddites. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
[6]	Thomis M (1970) The Luddites: Machine-breaking in Regency England. David & Charles, Newton Abbot.
[7]	Jones SE (2006) Against technology: From the Luddites to neo-Luddism. Routledge, New York and London.
[8]	Fey JT (1979) Calculators and mathematics education. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.
[9]	Ward AF, Duke K, Gneezy A, Bos MW (2017) Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 2(2): 140–154.
[10]	National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989) Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.
[11]	Autor DH (2015) Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(3): 3–30.
[12]	Febvre L, Martin H-J (1976) The coming of the book: The impact of printing 1450–1800. Verso, London.
[13]	Tripsas M, Gavetti G (2000) Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal 21(10–11): 1147–1161.
[14]	Markides C, Charitou CD (2004) Competing with dual business models: A contingency approach. Academy of Management Executive 18(3): 22–36.
[15]	Tripsas M (2009) Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of the digital photography revolution. Organization Science 20(2): 441–460.
[16]	Grove A (1996) Only the paranoid survive: How to exploit the crisis points that challenge every company. Currency Doubleday, New York.
[17]	Burgelman RA (1994) Fading memories: A process theory of strategic business exit in dynamic environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 39(1): 24–56.
[18]	Tryon C (2015) TV got better: Netflix’s original programming strategies and the on-demand television transition. Media Industries Journal 2(2): 104–116.
[19]	McDonald R, Eisenhardt KM (2020) Parallel play: Startups, nascent markets, and effective business-model design. Administrative Science Quarterly 65(2): 483–523.
[20]	Cusumano MA, Gawer A, Yoffie DB (2019) The business of platforms: Strategy in the age of digital competition, innovation, and power. Harper Business, New York.
[21]	Vuori TO, Huy QN (2016) Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle. Administrative Science Quarterly 61(1): 9–51.
[22]	Sheff D (1993) Game over: How Nintendo conquered the world. Random House, New York.
[23]	Mollick E, Mollick L, Noy S (2023) What can we learn from experiments with generative AI? Journal of Economic Perspectives 37(4): 3–30.
[24]	Firth J, Torous J, Stubbs B, et al. (2019) The “online brain”: How the Internet may be changing our cognition. World Psychiatry 18(2): 119–129.
[25]	Felten EW, Raj M, Seamans R (2018) A method to link advances in artificial intelligence to occupational abilities. AEA Papers and Proceedings 108: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20181021
[26]	Goldin C, Katz LF (2008) The race between education and technology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Majumdar, P. (2026). The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Business and Economics Research, 15(1), 8-17. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Majumdar, P. The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Int. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 2026, 15(1), 8-17. doi: 10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Majumdar P. The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Int J Bus Econ Res. 2026;15(1):8-17. doi: 10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12,
  author = {Partha Majumdar},
  title = {The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence},
  journal = {International Journal of Business and Economics Research},
  volume = {15},
  number = {1},
  pages = {8-17},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijber.20261501.12},
  abstract = {The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has created a polarised public response, oscillating between utopian visions and existential fear. This analysis refutes these extremes, arguing that such anxiety is not a new phenomenon but a recurring historical cycle associated with the externalisation of human faculties. By examining historical precedents, the text reframes the AI challenge as a manageable variable rather than an uncontrollable force. The Socratic critique of writing, which warned of cognitive atrophy from externalised memory, is presented as an ancient parallel to modern concerns about AI fostering superficial competence. Similarly, the 19th-century Luddite movement is reinterpreted not as an irrational opposition to technology, but as a rational response by skilled artisans to the deskilling of their labour and the degradation of product quality-an analogue to fears that AI will devalue human expertise. Further parallels from the 20th-century "calculator wars" in education illustrate how curricula shifted from rote computation to higher-order problem-solving. These historical examples collectively argue that technological disruptions compel a redefinition of human competence and create new opportunities, rather than simply leading to cognitive or economic decline. Building on this historical perspective, the analysis proposes that the antidote to technological anxiety is a disciplined, managerial approach grounded in rigorous contingency planning. Through corporate case studies-contrasting Kodak’s strategic inertia with Fujifilm’s successful diversification, alongside the proactive pivots of Intel and Netflix-the text illustrates that organisational resilience depends on the ability to critically reassess core capabilities and cannibalise legacy models when necessary. This evidence informs a comprehensive, tiered risk management framework designed for professionals and institutions. "Plan A" focuses on Mitigation and Integration, advocating a "Centaur" model in which humans and AI collaborate as distinct but complementary agents, preserving human authority and using cognitive forcing functions to prevent automation complacency. "Plan B," a Contingency and Diversification strategy, involves developing multi-skilled, "M-shaped" professionals and cultivating an "analogue hedge" in roles requiring physical presence or legal accountability. Finally, "Plan C" outlines a strategy for Resilience and Sovereignty, serving as a last resort against systemic failure through the development of technological sovereignty via locally controlled AI and the willingness to execute a radical pivot to entirely new sectors. The overarching thesis is that by establishing these explicit contingency plans, organisations can transform existential risk into a manageable operational procedure, navigating the AI revolution with strategic preparedness rather than reactive panic.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
AU  - Partha Majumdar
Y1  - 2026/02/09
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12
T2  - International Journal of Business and Economics Research
JF  - International Journal of Business and Economics Research
JO  - International Journal of Business and Economics Research
SP  - 8
EP  - 17
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-756X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12
AB  - The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has created a polarised public response, oscillating between utopian visions and existential fear. This analysis refutes these extremes, arguing that such anxiety is not a new phenomenon but a recurring historical cycle associated with the externalisation of human faculties. By examining historical precedents, the text reframes the AI challenge as a manageable variable rather than an uncontrollable force. The Socratic critique of writing, which warned of cognitive atrophy from externalised memory, is presented as an ancient parallel to modern concerns about AI fostering superficial competence. Similarly, the 19th-century Luddite movement is reinterpreted not as an irrational opposition to technology, but as a rational response by skilled artisans to the deskilling of their labour and the degradation of product quality-an analogue to fears that AI will devalue human expertise. Further parallels from the 20th-century "calculator wars" in education illustrate how curricula shifted from rote computation to higher-order problem-solving. These historical examples collectively argue that technological disruptions compel a redefinition of human competence and create new opportunities, rather than simply leading to cognitive or economic decline. Building on this historical perspective, the analysis proposes that the antidote to technological anxiety is a disciplined, managerial approach grounded in rigorous contingency planning. Through corporate case studies-contrasting Kodak’s strategic inertia with Fujifilm’s successful diversification, alongside the proactive pivots of Intel and Netflix-the text illustrates that organisational resilience depends on the ability to critically reassess core capabilities and cannibalise legacy models when necessary. This evidence informs a comprehensive, tiered risk management framework designed for professionals and institutions. "Plan A" focuses on Mitigation and Integration, advocating a "Centaur" model in which humans and AI collaborate as distinct but complementary agents, preserving human authority and using cognitive forcing functions to prevent automation complacency. "Plan B," a Contingency and Diversification strategy, involves developing multi-skilled, "M-shaped" professionals and cultivating an "analogue hedge" in roles requiring physical presence or legal accountability. Finally, "Plan C" outlines a strategy for Resilience and Sovereignty, serving as a last resort against systemic failure through the development of technological sovereignty via locally controlled AI and the willingness to execute a radical pivot to entirely new sectors. The overarching thesis is that by establishing these explicit contingency plans, organisations can transform existential risk into a manageable operational procedure, navigating the AI revolution with strategic preparedness rather than reactive panic.
VL  - 15
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Partha Majumdar

Department of Computer Science, Swiss School of Business and Management (SSBM), Geneva, Switzerland

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0002-7375-8034

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Majumdar, P. (2026). The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Business and Economics Research, 15(1), 8-17. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Majumdar, P. The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Int. J. Bus. Econ. Res. 2026, 15(1), 8-17. doi: 10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Majumdar P. The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Int J Bus Econ Res. 2026;15(1):8-17. doi: 10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12,
  author = {Partha Majumdar},
  title = {The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence},
  journal = {International Journal of Business and Economics Research},
  volume = {15},
  number = {1},
  pages = {8-17},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijber.20261501.12},
  abstract = {The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has created a polarised public response, oscillating between utopian visions and existential fear. This analysis refutes these extremes, arguing that such anxiety is not a new phenomenon but a recurring historical cycle associated with the externalisation of human faculties. By examining historical precedents, the text reframes the AI challenge as a manageable variable rather than an uncontrollable force. The Socratic critique of writing, which warned of cognitive atrophy from externalised memory, is presented as an ancient parallel to modern concerns about AI fostering superficial competence. Similarly, the 19th-century Luddite movement is reinterpreted not as an irrational opposition to technology, but as a rational response by skilled artisans to the deskilling of their labour and the degradation of product quality-an analogue to fears that AI will devalue human expertise. Further parallels from the 20th-century "calculator wars" in education illustrate how curricula shifted from rote computation to higher-order problem-solving. These historical examples collectively argue that technological disruptions compel a redefinition of human competence and create new opportunities, rather than simply leading to cognitive or economic decline. Building on this historical perspective, the analysis proposes that the antidote to technological anxiety is a disciplined, managerial approach grounded in rigorous contingency planning. Through corporate case studies-contrasting Kodak’s strategic inertia with Fujifilm’s successful diversification, alongside the proactive pivots of Intel and Netflix-the text illustrates that organisational resilience depends on the ability to critically reassess core capabilities and cannibalise legacy models when necessary. This evidence informs a comprehensive, tiered risk management framework designed for professionals and institutions. "Plan A" focuses on Mitigation and Integration, advocating a "Centaur" model in which humans and AI collaborate as distinct but complementary agents, preserving human authority and using cognitive forcing functions to prevent automation complacency. "Plan B," a Contingency and Diversification strategy, involves developing multi-skilled, "M-shaped" professionals and cultivating an "analogue hedge" in roles requiring physical presence or legal accountability. Finally, "Plan C" outlines a strategy for Resilience and Sovereignty, serving as a last resort against systemic failure through the development of technological sovereignty via locally controlled AI and the willingness to execute a radical pivot to entirely new sectors. The overarching thesis is that by establishing these explicit contingency plans, organisations can transform existential risk into a manageable operational procedure, navigating the AI revolution with strategic preparedness rather than reactive panic.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - The Architecture of Stability: Historical Continuity, Institutional Preparedness over Panic, and Strategic Contingency in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
AU  - Partha Majumdar
Y1  - 2026/02/09
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12
T2  - International Journal of Business and Economics Research
JF  - International Journal of Business and Economics Research
JO  - International Journal of Business and Economics Research
SP  - 8
EP  - 17
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-756X
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijber.20261501.12
AB  - The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has created a polarised public response, oscillating between utopian visions and existential fear. This analysis refutes these extremes, arguing that such anxiety is not a new phenomenon but a recurring historical cycle associated with the externalisation of human faculties. By examining historical precedents, the text reframes the AI challenge as a manageable variable rather than an uncontrollable force. The Socratic critique of writing, which warned of cognitive atrophy from externalised memory, is presented as an ancient parallel to modern concerns about AI fostering superficial competence. Similarly, the 19th-century Luddite movement is reinterpreted not as an irrational opposition to technology, but as a rational response by skilled artisans to the deskilling of their labour and the degradation of product quality-an analogue to fears that AI will devalue human expertise. Further parallels from the 20th-century "calculator wars" in education illustrate how curricula shifted from rote computation to higher-order problem-solving. These historical examples collectively argue that technological disruptions compel a redefinition of human competence and create new opportunities, rather than simply leading to cognitive or economic decline. Building on this historical perspective, the analysis proposes that the antidote to technological anxiety is a disciplined, managerial approach grounded in rigorous contingency planning. Through corporate case studies-contrasting Kodak’s strategic inertia with Fujifilm’s successful diversification, alongside the proactive pivots of Intel and Netflix-the text illustrates that organisational resilience depends on the ability to critically reassess core capabilities and cannibalise legacy models when necessary. This evidence informs a comprehensive, tiered risk management framework designed for professionals and institutions. "Plan A" focuses on Mitigation and Integration, advocating a "Centaur" model in which humans and AI collaborate as distinct but complementary agents, preserving human authority and using cognitive forcing functions to prevent automation complacency. "Plan B," a Contingency and Diversification strategy, involves developing multi-skilled, "M-shaped" professionals and cultivating an "analogue hedge" in roles requiring physical presence or legal accountability. Finally, "Plan C" outlines a strategy for Resilience and Sovereignty, serving as a last resort against systemic failure through the development of technological sovereignty via locally controlled AI and the willingness to execute a radical pivot to entirely new sectors. The overarching thesis is that by establishing these explicit contingency plans, organisations can transform existential risk into a manageable operational procedure, navigating the AI revolution with strategic preparedness rather than reactive panic.
VL  - 15
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download