Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, Ph.D.

I study people, technology, and the worlds they make

Home of the Future

In a comment to yesterday’s post about Bruce Sterling’s new book, Invisible Adjunct pointed out an online version of “Miracles of the Next Fifty Years,” a 1950 Popular Mechanics article describing what life would be like in 2000. It struck me that the piece made an error that Geoffrey Nunberg describes in his article “Farewell to the Information Age:” it projects emerging technologies out into the future in a fairly linear manner, but doesn’t imagine social life being any different. The future is a place of whiz-bang gadgetry, but the wife still stays home and cooks and cleans (though those will be much easier than in 1950).

It turns out that this article isn’t just like the kind of thing that Nunberg criticizes: it IS the article that Nunberg critizes! Here’s the opening to Nunberg’s “Farewell to the Information Age,” a piece that is very much worth reading in its entirety:

Nothing betrays the spirit of an age so precisely as the way it represents the future. Take the picture that appeared in Popular Mechanics magazine in 1950 in an article on “The Home of the Future.” It shows a woman in an apron in the middle of a living room full of furniture with the rounded “futuristic” forms of the period, which she is spraying with a garden hose. The caption reads, “Because all her furniture is waterproof, the housewife of the year 2000 can do her cleaning with a hose. “Like most such representations, it gives itself away in two complementary misapprehensions. The first and most obvious comes of taking some recent innovation at the steepest point of its curve and projecting it linearly to a point where it has swept all its predecessors aside….

The second misapprehension is the opposite of the first. It comes from a failure to appreciate, not how durable some features of the material setting will turn out to be, but rather how contingent and mutable are some of the categories of social life. What is most telling to us now about the Popular Mechanics picture is its presupposition is that in the year 2000 the household cleaning will still be woman’s work and indeed the function of the picture, wittingly or unwittingly, is to naturalize that assumption. This is a much harder kind of misconception to avoid, because it rests on the unspoken presuppositions of a discourse, and as such is more difficult to bring to consciousness. Or to put it another way: the first sort of error is in seeing the future as being insufficiently like the present, and that is relatively easy to correct for;you just imagine the future furnished like the room you are in. Whereas the second sort of error involves seeing the future as insufficiently different from the present, and this we can correct for only by a determined act of imagination: forty-five years from now gender roles will be different how??

The Popular Mechanics article, incidentally, is published online as part of an MIT project on the Home of the Future; there are lots of other examples of visions of future houses.

3 Comments

  1. I like the idea, except I’ve somehow become the one who cleans (after a fashion) and cooks (most of the time) and is generally shockingly domestic, despite how “modern” and “liberated” both my husband and I are about our thinking and willingness to accept gender roles, etc. It doesn’t seem to matter that I’m much less qualified to clean anything than he is; he has, however, grudgingly taken over the laundry as a result of having criticized my bleaching technique some years ago.

    In the meantime, much of the PM article (except the flying cars, natch) is pretty good stuff. Sure, gender biases and optimism about solar power and innocence about plastics leaching estrogens into food are included, but I liked the five-page fax in a minute and the multi-level streets (think Wacker Drive!).

    Re the Nunberg essay, I am touched by his assertion that books will endure, even in printed form, for some time. It rather puts me in the mind of Neal Stephenson’s The Diamond Age, wherein actual literacy is no longer necessary to assimilate information, but the book itself still is.

  2. You’re right that some things the article predicted were pretty close– the fax machine is the best example.

    And in some ways, we have disposable utensils, in the form of fast food wrappers, pizza boxes, water bottles, etc.; the problem is they’re not AS disposable as we’d like.

  3. Nice site you have!
    —–
    PING:
    TITLE: More Blogging for Tickets
    URL: http://www.buttsseats.com/archives/2005/03/07/more_blogging_for_tickets
    IP: 216.193.213.78
    BLOG NAME: Butts In The Seats
    DATE: 03/07/2005 11:11:45 PM
    Slight Sidebar before I start-Check out the Discussion over at Artsjournal.com on making a better case for the arts. An interesting collection of folks you don’t normally see writing there. —————- So my entries about Impact Theatre’s offer of…
    —–
    PING:
    TITLE: Henry Jenkins on the retro future
    URL: http://Blogger.iftf.org/Future/000570.html
    IP: 65.223.9.30
    BLOG NAME: Future Now
    DATE: 10/01/2004 10:51:18 AM
    Technology Review’s Henry Jenkins, who gets out more than me, recently saw Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, and reading Art Spiegelman’s In the Shadow of No Towers. The two indicate a new feel about the future, he argues in his essay, The Tomorro…

Comments are closed.

© 2018 Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, Ph.D.

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑