During
our last class discussion, we touched on a critical topic in the maker
movement: the role of play alongside work and its significance to our broader
society. A lot of useful ideas about play and its importance to children came up,
mostly as an argument against the common assumption that play is a distraction
from the rigor and structure a child should have to live under. Rather, my
classmates argued, children need play not only for the respite and recreational
value of it, but the learning qualities associated with play-based activities. The
Montessori quote saying “play is the work of childhood” resonated in this
discussion, where play was credited with teaching valuable technical and soft
skills for children. One moment that crystallized my understanding of the
importance of play was Kristin’s story about the kids’ basketball coach who
refused to yell and tell the kids what to do during a game. The coach’s
response that “they shouldn’t be acting in response to me, they should be
acting in response to the game” really captures the essence of making as an
analogy that places value on children, and by extension all makers, learning by
doing rather than being told how by an authority figure.
As
the maker movement grows beyond the confines of its original meanings and
intents, it is important to recognize the underpinning values that maker
culture is associated with in order to understand when divergent paths are
being taken. The readings this week covered the “professionalization” of the maker
movement and its role in a new “industrial revolution.” One of the main points
of contention in this professionalization was moving beyond several key values
in the maker movement, particularly open access and profit. In terms of the
former, Silvia Lindtner and Co. highlighted the example of MakerBot becoming
open-access-ish in order to protect their design as they tried to produce their
product on a mass-scale. The decision to become “’as open as we possibly can’
instead of retaining a strict adherence to open source” [1] drew scorn from
maker colleagues for betraying a basic principle of the maker movement. The
Makerbot example reminded me of the Dougherty story where he tells of a
sous-vide maker who struggles with competitors taking portions of her ideas and
putting them to market faster. The necessity for closing off one’s designs in
order to make a profit in the industrial production world reveals the tensions
in expanding the maker movement to the supply chain.
The
issue that I personally have with this professionalization is that it
contradicts the central tenet of the maker movement, which is that people
should rely on their own ability to make rather than simply consume what’s in
front of them. This professionalization seems more concerned with making the
supply chain more efficient and quicker to meet the insatiable demands of the twenty-first
century consumer. I particularly found the claim by the GE makerspace CEO that “we
are the pirates and Appliance Park [the company’s mass manufacturing center for
appliances] is the navy” [2] to be
laughable in that it assumes that pirates and the navy would work together in
the first place. Pirates are/were known for subverting the will of the institutional
navy and not adhering to traditional rules or conduct. The makers that wish to
gain corporate access or merely wish to make a profit make the argument that
Lindtner repeats, which that it is not only beneficial for their livelihoods,
but for the maker movement as well: “many considered such alignments essential
in order to move DIY beyond such a hobbyist practice.”[3] By moving toward the
profit model of mass production, I fear that makers are simply enabling the “learned
helplessness” [4] of consumerism that Dougherty warns in his first chapter of “Free
to Make,” as consumers of these rapidly designed products will not be inspired to
create on their own but simply demand more, but faster.
--
[1]
Lindtner 7
[2]
Fallows, Atlantic pt. 2
[3]
Lindtner 4
[4]
Dougherty XVII
