The Psychology of Greed in Industrial Design: An Exploration of Planned Obsolescence

Running Head: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GREED IN INDUSTRIAL DESIGN: PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE by Richard Clarkson

The Psychology of Greed in Industrial Design:

An Exploration of Planned Obsolescence

Richard Clarkson

300160220

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GREED IN INDUSTRIAL DESIGN: PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE Richard Clarkson

Abstract:

Since a very young age I have heard the clichéd term “they don’t make things like the used to,” being

used in common speech. Though it is only upon very close inspection of this saying that one is able

to begin to understand the very rich source of historical and political arguments behind it. Who is

“they?” John Thackara offers the idea that in a sense we are all designers (Thackara, 2005), and

therefore it is impractical to argue the term “they” and a more appropriate to use the term “us.” We

all play some part in the making process and though we rarely see or utilise the potential of this fact,

we indeed have the power to change and shape this process.

This thesis is an exploration into planned obsolescence and the ethics, theories and justifications

behind it. I explore what ‘greedy design’ is and how it is both effected by and affects our culture in

an industrial design context.


I am a huge believer in the idea that design can change the world. Its unique ability to combine

elements from the arts, humanities, sciences and cultures puts it in a very powerful position

(Vermaas, Kroes, Light, & Moore, 2008, p. 106). But has design taken advantage of this power? Has

design become lazy? Is it now more concerned with its own future than the greater good?

Planned obsolescence is the intentional flaw of a product that makes the user want and/or

need to replace it prematurely (Beder, 1998). It can be structural, functional or even psychological.

Though there are many other forms of ‘bad design’ that exist today none are more manipulative,

self-destructive and wasteful than planned obsolescence, it truly is greedy design at its worst.

To unravel the complex story of Greedy design through planned obsolescence we must

journey back to the beginning. Not only to the begging of the term itself but far earlier to the

conception of our culture. As we evolved into Homo sapiens by standing on two legs we began to

adapt at a rapid pace and through increased sexual efficiency we in turn, as individuals, became

highly competitive (Diamond, 2008). Competitiveness exists throughout nature, for instance; plants

fight for survival on the Amazon’s forest floor (Revkin, 2004 ), birds fight for prime watch posts and

nesting places (Birch, 1957) and the giant Australian cuttlefish uses cunning tactics to trick rivals out

of potential mates (Graham, 2005). So what makes us different? When, how and why did

competitiveness evolve in the human race to become greed?

I believe it was soon after those first upright steps when we as a species began to multiply

more efficiently. We found safety in numbers which lead to prosperity, basic to the ideal of greed

that “more is good” (Pizzigati, 2004, p. 365). As the future of our species seemed to become secure,

individuals began to shift importance of thinking from protecting that of the species future to

protecting that of one’s own individual future. Though this small change in logic is irrelevant over

one generation, across thousands it morphs into something dark and self-destructive. As a species

our holistic foresight was reduced and as we move through the centuries we see greed begin to form

the paradoxical contradiction it inevitably creates, indeed we see it begin to impact on our species

future and perhaps even shorten it.

Defining this basic human characteristic is essential to my argument, for without

understanding of the origins of a concept we have no hope to change it. Greed itself has not always

been viewed as negatively as it is today, greed, inequality and envy have all be in some way pushed

by Governments, corporations and culture, no more obviously than in mid-depression 1950’s

America (Packard, 1960) (Dannortzer, 2010) (Pizzigati, 2004). It is not surprising then that amongst


this selfish environment that this is the point at which planned obsolescence was officially

conceived. In a report made to government by one Bernard London entitled “The new Prospering”

London excides the idea of solving the depression problem is by enforcing ‘death dates’ of products

to encourage consumer spending (Dannortzer, 2010). Though the idea was rejected it resurfaced

some years later through Brooks Stevens industrial design work. Planned obsolescence’s roots may

lie in that of a positive economic outlook but even this outlook at its heart has a form of personal

greed and manipulation.

Rather than encourage functional obsolescence Stevens sought after psychological

obsolescence:

Styling and fashion trends became the perfect vehicle for Stevens’s psychological

obsolescence. In no other design industry is planned obsolescence through psychology more prolific

and celebrated than in fashion. Fashion relies on new, but often recycled, trends to sell to the public

(Papanek, 1995, p. 180). As trends change corporations can sell the consumer more products more

frequently, exactly aligned with the ideologies of Stevens.

Papanek draws attention to the ‘greedy mass media’ though I propose that it would more

appropriately be named the ‘greedy mass culture.’ What hope does a designer have when he/or she

works for a greedy company, in a greedy culture selling goods to greedy consumers? Surely the

inevitable result is greedy design?

The British film, “The Man in the White Suit,” may provide insight to designers in the

industry who fight against planned obsolescence. The film depicts a man who invents an almost

everlasting fabric, when he takes this to the industry he expects a hero’s welcome, instead he must

flee for his life from pursuing textile corporation thugs, executives and even factory workers who


fear of losing their jobs. Eventually he is blackmailed into selling the rights to the textile executives

who supress and destroy the technology in order to maintain their monopoly and continued future

production profits (Mackendrick, 1951). Indeed the films narrative may be closer to the truth than

we care to admit. In the 1960’s a Company called Du Pont released a new fabric for lady’s stockings

aptly named ‘nylons’. Engineers responsible for the great improvement where soon given express

instruction to make the fabric weaker and more fragile as Du Pont Executives began to realise with

longer lasting stockings women would reduce future purchases and profits would fall. (Dannortzer,

2010)

To me the fact that we as a society have had not only had the technology but also the ability

to produce ‘everlasting’ stockings for over half a century yet we still have not seen them come to

production is immensely frustrating and hugely disappointing. Think of the pointless waste and the

unnecessary use of valuable resources at the hands of these selfish corporations who argue that

through their own benefit leads to everyone’s benefit (Packard, 1960) – a flawed theory that is

primary to Smithian Economics. (Edney, 2005)

How terribly conflicted the engineers and designers of Du Pont must have felt, to strive for

so long to achieve something only to be told its not economically viable for the company to produce.

As designers we have the obligation to design for the client in terms of both the end user and the

company we are employed by (Papanek, 1995) (Lawson, 2006). What happens when these two

contradict themselves? What if either of these elements conflict with the designers values? One

would hope the greater good would prevail but sadly this is often not the case. (Fisher, 2008, pp.

104-106) The invisible hand as it is known in economic terms drives our decision making to align with

the company, as this is the logical choice for our individual and immediate future. The designer

rationalises that ‘they have no choice’ and in their eyes pass the responsibility of their choices and

the possibly adverse effects of said choices onto the company (Vermaas, Kroes, Light, & Moore,

2008, p. 5). It is in this way that the greed of a few at the top spreads to the many at the bottom.


While it is easy to point the finger at companies and corporations such as Du Point we as a

society cannot place blame them for utilising the system for maximum personal gains when as a

culture that is our primary aim. Author Julian Edney points out that at the very heart of our

consumerism culture “the obvious result is inequality, because the intention is inequality.” (Edney,

2005) A fact that is rarely advertised but unashamedly accepted. Why are the super-rich not looked

at with the same negative outlook as the super poor? If greed is the hoarding of wealth and power

beyond necessity why are the super-rich not as much as a ‘problem’ as the impoverish? How can one

extreme be celebrated and one be so disgusting? To put metaphorically; isn’t being too hot just as

dangerous as being too cold? These answers are difficult to find answers to and even more difficult

to people to ask them and ears that will hear them but I believe that the answers lie in culture.

Wabi-sabi is the Japanese term that includes but goes far beyond western terms such as

rustic, antique and patina:

At its very core wabi-sabi is a concept directly opposed to planned obsolescence. It is about

honesty; honesty of materials, of words, of time and of creation. Objects designed with wabi-sabi

actually gain value with age and wear, it is one of the few human ideals and resources than is non-

exhaustive along with friendship, love and knowledge (Latouche, 1996). By placing value in these

concepts rather than material ownership, power or wealth we as a species begin to expand our

foresight to the level of an ecological cycle in nature and beyond ones selfish needs (Fry, 2009, pp.

217-218). Unfortunately as increased western ideals combine with Japanese traditions some

concepts like wabi-sabi, “once the preeminent high-culture Japanese aesthetic,” is now beginning to

become extinct (Koren, 2008, p. 8).

Today is a world in which Inkjet printer manufactures install chips to disable printers after a

certain number of pages printed, light bulb manufactures are fined by umbrella conglomerates if

they sell lighbulbs that function for ‘too long’ and the true cost of waste and transportation are

ignored (Dannortzer, 2010). It is up to us as the everyday person to make the change. John Thackara

an active member and founder to the Doors of Perception blog platform that searches out people

making a difference. In his Book In the Bubble, he speculates that we as everyday people are all


designers and this problem is all of ours to deal with (Thackara, 2005). Serge Latouche takes this

further and stipulates that we all need to redefine both our values and our culture (Latouche, 1996).

New Zealand is renowned for its green & environmentally beautiful image, but we just as

any other developed country are contributing to greedy design. American consumerist culture is as

much alive in New Zealand as it has ever been, with one small difference, we are begging to not only

see the effects but also to understand them – and that is the first step of change. Indeed the New

Zealand DIY culture of designs such as ‘The Thermette’ by John Heart (Belton, 1997) and Garth

Chester’s ‘Curvesse’ chair (Jenkins, 2006) are exemplary of how the planned obsolescence model can

be broken but ultimately it will take more than this to change the values of our culture.

Throughout this thesis I have introduced some bold ideas, and some even bolder

accusations. It is important to note that although I believe planned obsolescence to be harmful – not

only our environment but also our culture – there are other deeper factors at play. These factors

include economic, psychological, institutional and cultural influences. Before we can look to change

planned obsolescence and what I have coined ‘greedy design’ we must re-evaluate these factors;

first within the context of our culture and then within design.


Bibliography

Adamson, G. (2003). Industrial Strength Design: How Brooks Stevens Shaped Your World. Cambridge:

The MIT Press.

Beder, S. (1998, November). Is planned obsolescence socially responsible? Engineers Australia, 52.

Belton, S. (1997). The Thermette; A histoy of the Bengahszi Boiler. In J. Sayle (Ed.), DESN 272 : NZ

design history journal (pp. 25-31). Wellington: Wellington Polytechnic.

Birch, L. C. (1957, Jan-Feb). The Meanings of Competition. The American Naturalist, 91(856), 5-18.

Dannortzer, C. (Director). (2010). The Light Bulb Conspiracy [Motion Picture].

Diamond, J. (2008). The Great Leap Forward. In L. S. Hjorth, B. A. Eichler, A. S. Khan, & J. A. Morello,

Technology and Society: Issues for the 21st Century and Beyond (Third ed., pp. 15-24). Ney

Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Edney, J. (2005). Greed: A Treatise in Two Essays. Lincoln: iUniverse.

Fisher, T. (2008). Architectural Design and Ethics: Tools for Survival. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.

Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy.

New York: New York University Press.

Fry, T. (2009). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Oxford: Berg.

Graham, S. (2005, January 5). Dishonesty the Best Policy, Cuttlefish Study Concludes. Scientific

American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dishonesty-the-best-polic.

Hindle, T. (2008). The Economist Guide to Management Ideas and Gurus. London: Profile Books Ltd.

Iizuka, T. (2007). An Empirical Analysis of Planned Obsolescence. Journal of Economics &

Management Strategy, 16(1), 191–226.

Jenkins, D. L. (2006). 40 Legends of New Zealand Design. Auckland: Random House New Zealand.

Koren, L. (2008). Wabi-sabi for artists, designers, poets & philosophers. Point Reyes: Imperfect

Publishing.

Latouche, S. (1996). The Westernization of the World: Significance, Scope and Limits of the Drive

Towards Global Uniformity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Lawson, B. (2006). How Designers Think: the desing process demystified (Fourth ed.). Oxford:

Elsevier.


Lysonski, S., Durvasula, S., & Watson, J. (2003). Should marketing managers be concerned about

attitudes towards marketing and consumerism in New Zealand? A longitudinal view.

European Journal of Marketing, 37(3), 385 - 406.

Mackendrick, A. (Director). (1951). The Man in the White Suit [Motion Picture].

Newhauser, R. (2000). The early history of greed: the sin of avarice in early medieval thought and

literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Packard, V. (1960). The Waste Makers. London: Longmans, Green and Co Ltd.

Papanek, V. (1995). The Green Imperitive: Ecology and Ethics in Design and Architecture. London:

Editions Thames & Hudson.

Pizzigati, S. (2004). Greed and good: understanding and overcoming the inequality that limits our

lives. New York: The Apex Press.

Revkin, A. (2004 ). The burning season: the murder of Chico Mendes and the fight for the Amazon.

Washington: Island Press.

Slade, G. (2007 ). Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Thackara, J. (2005). In the bubble : Designing in a complex world. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Vermaas, P. E., Kroes, P., Light, A., & Moore, S. A. (Eds.). (2008). Philosophy and design : from

engineering to architecture. Dordrecht: Springer.

Waldman, M. (1993, Feb). A New Perspective on Planned Obsolescence. The Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 108(1), 273-283.

Documents

The Psychology of Greed in Industrial Design: An Exploration of Planned Obsolescence