This week I will take a look at the first section of Giles Slade's book, Made to Break; Technology and Obsolescence in America. In this book, Slade suggests the idea that new technology is "Made to Break" after a certain period of time. In the introduction, Slade explains the stage's of product obsolescence. The first is "technological obsolescence" which is when things become outdated based on innovation. This can easily be understood by all people. Everyone has decided they want a new phone or new Ipod because a newer, sleeker, "more effective" model has been introduced. Often we don't NEED these things but we feel that our current product is now outdated and therefore we update our technology.
Slade then writes that the next stage was "the annual model change". This represents "psychological, progressive, or dynamic obsolescence" (5). This is similar to the first in that people begin to feel their current equipment is no longer usable since there is something better. I think Apple is the best example of this type of obsolescence because every year almost they create a new version of each Ipod. While the functions rarely change, the cases and memory change drastically usually and this creates the feeling that makes people want the new Ipod.
Slade finally introduces "planned obsolescence" saying that since "any product will fail because its materials become worn or stressed [after prolonged use]" (5). Slade suggests that since manufacturer's know information about when their products will fail, they may try to limit the lifetime of a device in order to promote the consumer purchasing a new one. Slade informs us that this is illegal, however it likely exists in today's current market.
The first chapter describes the history of disposability within America, and Slade explains that American's practically invented it. I think this first chapter sets up the rest of the book really nicely. I believe this because it goes into detail about how American's dispose paper products, clothing and other things excessively. The reason for this is because of the ease of it. This is a habit that was developed in early America and still prevails within our society today. Everywhere we turn there are disposable things and it is only recently that people have becoming increasingly aware of the devastating effect it has on the environment and therefore are trying to cut back. But the main point is that I believe Slade has set up the book nicely, explaining that American Disposability is a habit that will be hard to break.
One thing that stood out to me was the following line, Slade writes, "This self-conscious concern about being out-of-fashion is the key feature of psychological obsolescence" (53). Slade is telling the reader that is it part of human nature that we feel left out if we don't have the best technology or the best in anything. From a young age little kids always want the same toys as everyone else and it's no different for adults. I even can recall seeing some cell phone advertisements that had the punchline "get rid of cell phone embarrassment" or something like that in an attempt to increase this feeling among people that still have "non-smart phones". The annual model change exploits this aspect of human nature and it is easy for the reader to see why.
Overall I believe Slade is proposing a very interesting argument so far. Ultimately he is suggesting that all of our technology is driven by capitalism and all of the major companies that produce the devices do so in a way that optimizes their monetary intake. This makes sense in terms of the large companies, however it makes me wonder whether or not the majority of consumers realize this. How would American's feel if they knew the companies were trying to manipulate their feelings to increase spending? But then again I suppose that's the point of having a business and creating new products so many American's who support capitalism might not feel too deceived. Overall I think Slade proposes some very interesting arguments, however I will need to read more before I evaluate his argument further.
No comments:
Post a Comment