{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","id":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","uuid":"10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title":"Time for Things Labor, Leisure, and the Rise of Mass Consumption","normalized_title":"timeforthingslaborleisureandtheriseofmassconsumption","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780674250529","isbns":["9780674250529","9780674250536","9780674979512"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":355,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Time%20for%20Things%20Labor%2C%20Leisure%2C%20and%20the%20Rise%20of%20Mass%20Consumption","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/10f0f318-a2eb-4ea9-8798-d4fb0304f8c3/search"},"page":{"printed_page":156,"pdf_page":164,"physical_index":164,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"29fb17fee57a2279bb68cf3559f09409d1549b78551d3391ee8d17b5da78dddc"},"chapter":"FOR","content":"Los Angeles Times, for example, ran a piece in 1930 in response to standard specifications issued by the National Bureau of Standards, the federal organization responsible for overseeing standardization, for mop sticks: “Recently the Bureau devised an instrument to measure the energy required to fold a sample of fabric, the energy recovered when the sample is allowed to unfold. Describing how this device is used, Textile Maintenance Notes reports that ‘the energy lost when a sample is folded is dissipated in producing a crease in the fabric. This energy loss . . . may be taken as a measure of the wrinkle ability of the fabric.’” The piece goes on to make the droll observation that similar thinking could be applied to “the powder ability of nutmegs . . . the eraser ability of rubbers,” asking “are there any standards for shoelace tips, key rings or soup ladles? If not, why not?”14 This piece of satire draws attention to the way in which consumer commodities were standardized, in essence, to the degree that they came to be measurable as precise quantities of stored usefulness; for although standardization began as a difuse project to rationalize production, it soon came to encompass consumption.\n\nOpinion about the trend toward standardization of the economy was far from being uniformly positive. There were dissenting voices, together forming a rather consistent current of opinion that bemoaned the alienating character of a standardized world. Some expressed the fear that standardization would slow or even halt the march of industrial progress by ossifying techniques of production and product design. “It has never been my experience that ‘standardization’ means the cessation of active improvement” commented one industry spokesperson, trying to allay this fear.15 Others were concerned that standardization would result in the death of competition and the rise of monopolies (Hoyt 1919). A more typical complaint was that with standardization comes monotonous uniformity, the collapsing of all that is unique and interesting into bland repetition—a bleak vision of industrial society that resonates with Chaplin’s in “Modern Times.”16 The worry that standardized production would lead to a standardization of values was very much in line with theories later developed by the members of the Frankfurt School: “The efort of the reformers seems to be to standardize the world. To standardize its commerce, its morals, its religion and everything else,” complained one commentator.17 Another voiced fears that standardization would soon creep into creative literature, with the efect of expunging the “creative” from literature.18 Concern was also expressed that standardization would somehow debase the “art” of politics.19 Standardization of things would, according to this critical current of opinion, inexorably leads to standardization of people.20 Thus, perhaps reflecting a more general dichotomy in discourses about modernity, there were two opposed visions of standardization, one that pictured it as an essentially progressive force, the other that saw in it a threat to human values. Opinion about standardization was suficiently divided that one commentator opined: “If the controversy about standardization keeps up, there will soon develop a pro and anti-standardization party in this country.”21\n\n156\n\nTime for Things","previous_page":155,"next_page":157}