Week 2 Reading Discussion: "Where Stuff Comes From"

[Dave Lester]

Hi and good morning. I wanted to start the discussion back up by
sharing some reactions to Harvey Molotch's book, "Where Stuff Comes
From," and lead with some questions. I've tried to frame the reading
in a way that, even if you haven't had a chance to read the book, you
can contribute to the conversation. For those interested in reading
only part of the book, I'd suggest chapter 1 for a brief overview of
Molotch's ideas, chapter 4 (particularly the latter half), and chapter
6.

Molotch is a sociologist, teaching at New York University with a
research focus on the sociology of objects, and urban studies. His
most interesting points in the book were, in my view, the blending of
these two research interests. Molotch continually refers to the
diverse origins of product ideas and design, production, and
consumption, and doesn't focus on the maker as much as the
constellation of ideas in which they operate. Beginning with his
concept of "lash-ups," he argues that we should not read objects as
texts, but instead, search through their social evolution. Lash-ups,
as products, are the material products of these influences and ideas.

Chapters 2 and 3 were less-aligned with my own interests, and it
wasn't until later in the book that I felt engaged. First focusing on
the role of designers, Molotch tackled how they deal with clients,
their relationship to the products they design, creative energy, as
well as the conditions in which they work. These restrictions were
mostly social, excluding a discussion of patents and how those
restrict and inform the design of works. What I found interesting was
how the Molotch observes that a driving interest among the designers
he met with was less about money, yet the book focuses on products and
less with the individuals who produce them. It's not until page 131
that Molotch uses the word "maker" to distinguish between the users of
products. It would seem that he's referring to designers, as covered
in previous chapters. I wondered, how is Molotch's definition of the
role of designers in the creation of products similar to, or
different, than David Pye's?

An example that Molotch refers to several times is baby names. He
equates the rise and fall in their popularity to the same process by
which products rise and fall in popularity. There are reasons that
certain names 'stick' for a while, always early adopters of popular
names, and patterns of behavior in who chooses what names. It's in
chapter 4 that Molotch specifies reasons why this may occur: cognitive
limits, cultural meanings, talkability and taboo, prior configurations
and tipping points. He argues each possible reason through a series
of examples, and I learned about many random things in this chapter,
including: Japanese sink-toilets, blue jeans, and that artificial
voice boxes for cancer patients were adapted from a toy voice
synthesizer. What I was enjoyed in the chapter was his section on how
products overcome their type form. Molotch discusses how nostalgia,
hybridizing, product mobility, and art can inspire and change
products, as well as consumer expectations of them.

Molotch points out a series of tipping points: boundaries that once
crossed make it too difficult to change a product or idea. Standard
gauge is a great example -- I didn't realize that the US space
shuttle's rocket booster's used the same dimensions to launch rocket
boosters. Despite the increased performance of 84 1/4" gauge,
standard gauge persists. Another example given are Crown Victoria
cars and their stronghold of the taxicab market, due to access to
spare parts that maintained sales momentum. They've reached the point
of no return. So what are other examples of tipping points, and what
are their similarities or differences? Is this tipping point due
solely to the economics of changing, or social expectations of what a
product is or does?

Chapter 6 explores why particular regions and places produce a
particular commodity -- for example, why Detroit became the center of
US car production. One idea standing out to me was that of "social
capital" (pg 163), that connections and knowledge in one place become
resources for others to draw on. I felt this way on a recent trip to
San Francisco, when I had a few face-to-face meetings with some dot-
com acquaintances. Our conversations weren't name-dropping, as much
as "Oh, so-and-so from Facebook works down the street. I'll ask
her." Or, "My best friend was in their wedding party. They'll know
the answer." Because of their locality, they had different access to
people and ideas than I do on the east coast. Molotch covers other
impacts of place on products, including local economies, the migration
of individuals to new places, tourism and art. But at the heart of
all of those side-conversations seems, at least to me, to be the
relationships of individuals within those places.

I've begun to wonder a lot about the impact of place on the work that
I'm doing. Even this Humanist Makers google group is an interesting
experiment of sorts, with many of us spread out geographically. Yet,
we can communicate in real-time, the existence of this group was
spread via a few tweets and blog posts, and nothing more. Watching
the maker movement begin to sprout up across the country, I think it
may be related to this. At the same time that technology is making it
easier for place to not be a limitation (send out an email, organize
an international group online, etc), there has been a push for
activity at a local level. In DC we have a hackerspace, I have a
friend who's involved in starting one in Baltimore.. they exist in New
York and many other cities. These local groups are related and
participate in a larger online discussion, but autonomous and provide
a space for the type of networking that Molotch discusses as "social
capital." What do others think about this?

Dave