3. Reflection

REFLECTION
In last week's class, we watched the Chevrolet makers video and I couldn't help but be reminded about how much maker culture was so much depended on in those days. It was very hands-on, every single item was made individually and it was just their way of living. That was their work. That was their specialty. Every piece was made uniquely. It was because of this kind of maker culture in the previous generations where people hand-carved lazy Susans, handmade teapots and glass jars, baked pies from scratch, etc., that we have a lot of the convenient tools and products we can just buy off the shelf in stores today. Those handmade products in the beginning were the prototypes and eventually they wanted to make things more efficient, make things quicker, and create standardized and equal parts so that they all look the same. So mass production came in to assist there. But because of wanting to increase efficiency in this way and replacing man with machinery, we who are born in today's convenient age have lost some sense of the maker culture today. Back then, maker culture was out of necessity, a lifestyle, but today, it seems to me that maker culture is almost regarded as just a hobby or something that not everybody has to do. It's as if not everybody has to be a maker and we'll still live comfortably, which may be true but is also sad. I believe that in order to continue to provide for our society today, mass production is necessary. However, in order to progress in terms of innovation and creating new things to fit the ever-changing needs of people, there is a need to keep and grow the maker culture.

READING SUMMARY
I felt that this week's readings had somewhat conflicting views of what the maker culture is. Mark Hatch in The Maker Movement Manifesto presents a list of rules for what a maker is or does. His point of view is very much that everyone is a maker and that makers make anything. I do agree with this view. I also gather the sense (after reading Making It and Why I Am Not a Maker) that he still focuses very much on electronic, metal, wood, plastic, and (the most feminine of all) sewing projects and mentions nothing about cooking, drawing, painting, etc.. Maybe these "manly" projects emphasized are just his interests and he forgets to mention the more feminine projects, which though he includes, does not mention as frequently due to lack of experience or interest. In any case, this distinction is not important. He does push a little more on taking classes and learning and picking up skills in order to use tools to help make your projects. This thought I agree with but to a certain extent. It is definitely helpful to learn and pick up these skills and no doubt taking classes is a speedier and more formal way to do so. It's kind of what we are doing in our class too. We are taking a Makerspaces class to exercise our interest as makers and learn to make new things and pick up new skills. But I was also thinking, perhaps he is also doing so to promote his TechShop? We won't know for sure.

In contrast, Debbie Chachra in Why I Am Not a Maker seems to be upset about how the whole "maker" identifier assumes to primarily include male-dominant activities producing materialistic products and rejects the more traditional, feminine roles such as care-giving. Perhaps I am just reading too much into it but her writing, to me, implies that because "maker culture" is so male-domain focused, she refuses to be identified with this culture and therefore denies that she is a maker. To be honest, we need to forget about that. Yes, I agree there is frequently an implication accompanied with the term "maker" that you are producing something material and tangible. But that is because we humans are very materialistic beings. We need to see, touch, feel results, which, the most tangible of all, are physical products or at least virtually packaged units of code or media (like films). But you can also make events, make makers through educating, make philosophy through analyzing, make better people through care-giving. It really doesn't have to be a "thing" and we are not regarding people as objects of our manipulation. Regardless, everyone always affects everyone through actions, words, thoughts, intentions. It's just a matter of big or small. And that is what I call "making" a person.

Then, this whole "which male and female activities are considered part of maker culture" is just a big fuss. You can code if you are a girl and you can sew if you are a boy. That's okay. Perhaps it's not emphasized that way because we were created differently by God. Adam was created first and the Eve was made out of Adam's rib to be his helper. Already, you see that there is a difference since the very beginning. It's innate. We were created and born this way. Call me old-fashioned, or anti-feminist, or whatever. Men and women are different. That is a fact. But even so, I am not saying that women can never make what men make nor that men should never make what women make. No. Men and women can make whatever they want to make. We just have natural tendencies for men to lean towards male-domain activities and women towards female-domain activities and it is just currently emphasized that way in the media. And that is okay. If she would like to change that, then she should make something in the female-domain that is not necessarily physical (such as care-giving and educating) and write about how it is part of the maker culture instead. I just don't think our time should be focused on these minor male/female issues. Rather, we should be focusing on what we (both male and female collectively) are making, how we are making it, and how it contributes to society.

In Making It, I find it somewhat difficult to understand what Evgeny Morozov's main point is. Hopefully, this will be unravelled more in class. But what struck me was in the later part of his article where he pointed out that there is an inequality of opportunity on online platforms to support maker products even though we might at first assume the opposite. He also mentions how Kickstarter has now diminished the need for formal large corporation investors yet how Kickstarter is more useful only when you have a multitude of Twitter followers compared to only a handful.

With regards to the Squishy Circuits tutorial, I think it was an excellent, very easy to read book for teenagers. I am even considering doing this with the kids at my church on Sundays during craft time since it is relatively simple to make! The only thing I feel is a little lacking is the tutorial about the battery pack. It mentions briefly about soldering the wires to the terminals but it doesn't tell me what kind of wires they are (they are just described as y-shaped metal wires). It also doesn't show me which part of the battery holder I am soldering the wires to. But overall, this makes me very excited to try it out in class this week and try out different things I can do with it!