Something for Everyone: Using Digital Methods to Make Physical Goods*

Something for everyone: Using digital methods to make physical goods* by ginger coons A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Information University of Toronto Copyright by ginger coons 2016 Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license Something for everyone: Using digital methods to make physical goods* ginger coons Doctor of Philosophy 2016 Faculty of Information, University of Toronto Abstract In this dissertation I draw a link between the purported changes being wrought on society by the adoption of digital production technologies and previous waves of technological change in the production of goods. I use two case studies to provide detailed accounts of methods of production and development which use digital fabrication technologies to negotiate relationships between individuals and standards. The first case study, a collaborative Free/Libre Open Source Software development project, represents a kind of digital production which creates digital goods. The second case study looks at the digitally-aided fabrication of a physical good: 3D-printed sockets for prosthetic legs. I further argue that we need new frameworks for studying the intersection of the digital and the physical, or the inextricability of the two concepts. Scrutinizing the way mass methods of production almost always account for the needs of some kind of normative user, resulting in mis-fit for non-standard users, I then question arguments about mass-customization as a solution to mis-fit. One of the contentions I advance in this dissertation is that positioning mass production as necessarily harmful and marginalizing, while seeing mass customization as a solution, creates a counter-productive dichotomy. In service of that argument, I draw on historical work about a pre-digital custom industry: dressmakers in the pre- and early-Industrial period. Finally, I trouble the role of the user in production, and contend that, increasingly, the distinction is not between who is a user or a producer, but in which circumstances, and when, one is acting in the role of the user or producer. ii Acknowledgements I don't want to write a long list of acknowledgements, but I don't want to miss anyone who deserves thanks. A significant number of people have helped this dissertation into the world, including the usual suspects like my parents (for the moral support), my committee (for the comments, insight and direction), and my friends and colleagues. By name, I need to thank, of course, my supervisor, Matt Ratto, and my committee members, Patrick Keilty and Brett Caraway. But if this were a book, with just a little dedication page, far different from the wall of text expected of the dissertation acknowledgements page, I'd write simply “To Rhonda, who taught me how to schedule.” iii Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Theoretical framework 16 3. Methodology 35 4. Custom and mass production 51 5. Interfaces between bodies and standards 97 6. The body in digital production 145 7. The users of custom goods 167 8. Conclusion 190 References 204 Appendices 211 iv List of illustrations Illustration 1 – p. 55 A drawing of a shirtwaist, printed in the 31 March, 1904 edition of the Tacoma Times. Illustration 2 – p. 56 Emiline, a lithograph by James S. Baillie of New York, NY (1845), showing the fitted style of bodice that was common at the time and for much of the 19th century. Illustration 3 – p. 59 The Fitting by Mary Cassatt (1891) depicts a woman being fitted for a dress, a task almost uniformly carried out by the mistress dressmaker herself. It is unclear whether the fitting takes place in the woman's home or in the dressmaker's shop. It is also unclear whether the painting is intended to reflect life in Cassatt's native Philadelphia, or Paris, where she lived at the time it was painted (Weinberg, n.d.). Illustration 4 – p. 77 LGRU sticker with the "Practice Shapes Tools Shape Practice" slogan. (Photograph by the author.) Illustration 5 – p. 100 The standard form of a trans-tibial prosthesis, with the socket highlighted. The cosmetic fairing, which serves to make the prosthesis look more leg-like, is not shown. (Illustration by the author.) Illustration 6 – p. 103 Dependency grid, circa summer/fall 2013. (By the author.) v List of appendices Appendix 1 – Glossary p. 211 Appendix 2 – Interview guides p. 212 Appendix 3 – Production colophon p. 213 vi 1 Introduction *Though the title of this dissertation implies a clear distinction between the digital and the physical in the phrase “Using digital methods to make physical goods,” it is impossible to find hard and fast differences between the digital and the physical, even if that were a desirable outcome. Rather than reify a distinction between the digital and the physical, this dissertation is instead about processes which blur the lines between what we might historically or popularly have thought of as the physical and the digital. Introduction This dissertation is about mass-customization, 3D printing, Makerism, the idea of “the digital,” human bodies and embodiment, and the promises often offered by those who argue that the future will be full of customized, digitally-built objects made to individual specifications—or something for everyone. I argue in the next eight chapters that, in order to understand the promises being offered up by advocates of digital fabrication technologies (especially in the service of mass customization), it is necessary to interrogate how such technologies and their uses differ from existing modes of production, and what kinds of interventions they are meant to make in the negotiations individuals face on a daily basis between their selves and the world. Crucially though, before I begin those interrogations, I must first provide some context on a paradigm shift or revolution that is supposed to be taking place: the next industrial revolution, a revolution which leverages digital fabrication tools and a can-do attitude to redefine the way we produce and consume. 1 On June 18th 2014, an event called the White House Maker Faire took place. In conjunction with the event, the President of the United States issued a proclamation, announcing the National Day of Making. The proclamation reads, in part: Today, more and more Americans are gaining access to 21st century tools, from 3D printers and scanners to design software and laser cutters. Thanks to the democratization of technology, it is easier than ever for inventors to create just about anything. Across our Nation, entrepreneurs, students, and families are getting involved in the Maker Movement. My Administration is increasing their access to advanced design and research tools while organizations, businesses, public servants, and academic institutions are doing their part by investing in makerspaces and mentoring aspiring inventors. [...] As we observe this day, I am proud to host the first-ever White House Maker Faire. This event celebrates every maker -- from students learning STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and Math] skills to entrepreneurs launching new businesses to innovators powering the renaissance in American manufacturing. I am calling on people across the country to join us in sparking creativity and encouraging invention in their communities. (Obama, 2014) Those two paragraphs are an excellent example of how new technologies in general, and desktop fabrication technologies in particular, are often talked about and promoted by politicians, industry, and journalists. Packed into under 150 words, this portion of the proclamation invokes economic growth, democratization of access to new technology and opportunities, personal fulfillment, learning outcomes currently considered valuable, and the idea of a "renaissance" in manufacturing, a field in which the United States formerly considered itself dominant. In large part, it is a story about the ways in which the Maker movement can help the United States to be a successful, globally-competitive country. The idea that the adoption of a new technology can so radically change the economic and social landscape of a country and its people is one which has been frequently trotted out in service 2 of the Maker movement and its attendant rhetoric. As the headline of an op-ed by Sadowski and Manson (2014) cheekily puts it, statements like those from President Obama are very much selling the idea that it is possible to "3-D print your way to freedom and prosperity." A few months before the presidential proclamation, in a February 2014 post on the official blog of the White House, Kalil and Miller (2014) recounted the story of “Joey Marshmallow,” a young boy who displayed a marshmallow cannon at the 2012 White House Science Fair. They used the story of Joey's marshmallow cannon—and the business card he handed the president, which had the slogan “Don't be bored, make something” printed on it— to contextualize the idea of being a Maker, rather than a consumer (with the two positioned as opposites), and to introduce the White House Maker Faire. They described Joey and his Maker compatriots as “the millions of citizen-makers driving the next era of American innovation” (Kalil & Miller, 2014). This emphasis on a move away from passive consumption, towards active, individualized, entrepreneurial production as something which has economic and social benefits for a nation is one thread in the rather complex weave of public adoption of digital fabrication technologies. *** PROFIT, a Canadian business magazine, has been covering mass customization for some time. In 2011, an article published in PROFIT proclaimed But now a new miracle is being performed by progressive firms across the business spectrum: mass personalization. Also known as mass customization, it's the process in which companies allow clients to tailor products—from jewelry to pet food—to their personal needs without paying "custom-made" prices.

Load more