Objects in Flux - RMIT Research Repository - RMIT University

Objects in Flux
[Figure 6-2]
Ford Model-T automobile used to
power a small saw mill.
Photograph from the Collections of
The Henry Ford.
106
6.2 Interpretative flexibility
accounts, the highly contested nature of object
use becomes apparent. The producer’s ability
to structure consumer behavior, and the actions
taken by consumers to escape this control,
positions the object as a site of struggle and
highlights a political dimension within practices
of consumption. The chapter concludes with an
examination of emerging consumer resistance
and collective action that threatens the authority
of established commercial institutions.
It is clear from Kline and Pinch’s study that practices of modification
were widespread amongst automobile owners, particularly farmers,
at the beginning of the 20th century. US census data from the 1920s
indicates that the automobile was far and away the most popular form
of inanimate power on the farm, and media reports of vehicle modifications
date back to 1903 (Kline & Pinch, 1996). While farmers gave
positive accounts of the modification process, automobile manufacturers
were generally less enthusiastic. In a survey conducted by the Rural
New Yorker in 1906, six out of seven auto manufacturers’ adamantly
opposed the use of the automobile as a stationary power source,
claiming such practices could damage the car’s engine or differential
gear (Kline & Pinch, 1996, p. 784). The Rural New Yorker aligned
itself with the manufacturers position, advising farmers to purchase
dedicated stationary engines (such as those regularly advertised in its
pages). This stance was given further support through journal articles
written by agricultural engineers who provided expert advice warning
of the danger posed by homemade conversions. In 1919, however,
when conversion kits designed to ‘safely’ harness power from the cars’
crankshafts or rear axles became widely available, and widely advertised
within the journal, the Rural New Yorker changed its editorial
stance and began recommending such kits (Kline & Pinch, 1996).
While journals such as the Rural New Yorker publicly supported commercially
available conversion kits, manufacturers of farm vehicles
generally adopted a more critical position. Quoted in a 1918 edition of
Tractor World, the advertising manager for the La Cross Tractor Com-