I look at the "maker" movement (a term that's been co-opted enough to rub me the wrong way) as being a reaction to the consumer culture that came before it. I grew up in an environment where "homemade" was equivalent to "couldn't afford to buy it" which meant "poor" and all of the negative stigma that carries.
I love that the idea of being a "maker" pushes against that and carries the ethos that something doesn't have to be a manufactured product from a brand name company to have real value.
But, of course, like any movement, it can be taken too far and over time the label becomes a caricature of itself. (See also: "hack".) I agree with her that focusing too much on "making stuff" does devalue people whose passion is more about taking care of people and things.
That's something I think the "DIY" movement before "makers" had a more nuanced perspective. The "DI" part was more open to interpretation. Fixing a broken toaster, conducting your own wedding ceremony, and crashing on couches while touring with your band instead of hiring a tour company are all "DIY" but don't seem to fit in the current definition of a "maker".
It's funny that DIY is seen as a "movement", like alternative lifestyle.
When you're poor, or from a poor country, DIY is the absolute default. My experience growing up in latin america during the 80's taught me only cashing out at the store after exhausting all possibilities of building/fixing something at home. People would often fix their own speakers, sound systems, TVs, clothes washer, cars, and so on - to the point the more easily serviceable brands were sought after, not the top-notch ones.
I recently traveled through some rural, non-tourist parts of Mexico and found exactly this attitude. I thought I had some of it -- I know how to make dirt, food, clothing, yarn/rope, soap, candles, beer, wine, etc, and the car has been repaired innumerable times -- but the level of DIY in these regions blew me away again. The vision, talent, and know-how to just get things done, which I also hear about from my American grandfather. A different level than just replacing a part in our washing machine.
My only other criticism of the original article is that if it's going to get gendered, we do need to think about the making that women have traditionally done. Food and textiles come to mind right off the bat.
Yeah, likely means "how to make topsoil" or "how to make arable dirt". An awful lot of land needs to be converted to something that can sustain the right kind of plants for humans to live on.
Heh, I fool around with cars. I have far, far more respect for a guy who built his own machine than someone who wrote a check for it. Even more for the guy who machined his own parts.
When I was in college, the cool thing to do was to design and build your own stereo system from discrete parts. Some did quite a stunning job of things like machining front panels out of raw stock.
Making your own stuff is viscerally satisfying in a way that's hard to describe.
I love that the idea of being a "maker" pushes against that and carries the ethos that something doesn't have to be a manufactured product from a brand name company to have real value.
But, of course, like any movement, it can be taken too far and over time the label becomes a caricature of itself. (See also: "hack".) I agree with her that focusing too much on "making stuff" does devalue people whose passion is more about taking care of people and things.
That's something I think the "DIY" movement before "makers" had a more nuanced perspective. The "DI" part was more open to interpretation. Fixing a broken toaster, conducting your own wedding ceremony, and crashing on couches while touring with your band instead of hiring a tour company are all "DIY" but don't seem to fit in the current definition of a "maker".