{"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":303,"pdf_page":311,"physical_index":311,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"cddf494736aebe6e077250857214dc062ff351ce35d09b58c15b7ddcf14c4e9e"},"chapter":"FOR","content":"23. Note that Chinoy’s workers’ comments on the satisfactions (or lack thereof) of work echo more recent research on the sources of happiness discussed in the introduction of this book.\n\n24. The Lynds (1933, pp. 467–68) write: “This illustrates Veblen’s point of the paramount importance of ‘conspicuous consumption’ as an identifying device in a community grown too large for more subtle means of appraisal. This would suggest a tendency, as a community grows, for its citizens to put more of their possessions ‘on their backs,’ into cars and other seeable goods.”\n\nc h a pt e r 6 : st a n d a r d i z a t i o n o f c o n s u mpt i o n , w o r k , a n d w a g e s\n\n1. Standardization, understood on a very general level as a means by which rationalization is achieved, is a feature of almost every domain of modern society. For a general overview of diferent forms of standardization see Timmermans and Epstein (2010).\n\n2. Busch has a very broad concept of what a standard is, stretching the idea even to cover conventional forms of language usage.\n\n3. That the word should first have appeared in the context of science, only later taking on its economic sense is not at all surprising given that standardization of production was largely a matter of applying of scientific methods to industrial processes (Noble 1977).\n\n4. Analysis of article titles in which the term standardization appears in major US newspapers shows the following distribution over time: 1800–1899: 0; 1900–1909: 54; 1909–1919: 268; 1920–1929: 348; 1930–1939: 178; 1940–1949: 149; 1950–1959: 77; 1960–1969: 29; 1970–1979: 28; 1980–1989: 40; 1990–1999: 194. The term standard, which obviously has a broader range of meanings than does standardization, is distributed as follows: 1800–1849: 9; 1850–1859: 46; 1860–1869: 126; 1870–1879: 772; 1880–1889: 2,043; 1890–1899: 5,018; 1900–1909: 9,535; 1910–1919: 11,495; 1920–1929: 17,968; 1930–1939: 15,619; 1940–1949: 8,176; 1950–1959: 9,903; 1960–1969: 10,962; 1970–1979: 8,175; 1980–1989: 6,216; 1990–1999: 2,818. So, even though standard can be used in ways that have little to do with the late nineteenth-century neologism standardization, the pattern of distribution of the two words is quite similar. The terms are either absent, or else have relatively little presence, for most of the nineteenth century but begin to appear with increasing frequency around the turn of the century. Both terms peak between 1920 and 1929 and decline thereafter in a fairly steady fashion (the newspapers surveyed include the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Chicago Sun Times, New York Post, Pittsburgh Courier, New York Amsterdam Times, Los Angeles Sentinel, and Atlanta Daily World).\n\n5. For example, the discussion about standardization in a 1928 issue of the American Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Lansburgh 1928) portrayed standardization as one end of pole at the other end of which lies variation and individualism. Both principles, “sameness and variation,” are described, in a manner reminiscent of Simmel, as “essential,” both in nature and for civilization (Whitney, 1928, p. 33). Too much of one demands a corrective rebalancing toward the opposite pole.\n\n6. The fact that talk about standards and standardization picked up again at the end of the twentieth century can be explained by the so-called third industrial revolution—the rise of information technology.\n\nNotes to Pages 143–154\n\n303","previous_page":302,"next_page":304}