![]()
Part I
Plastic materialities
![]()
1
Plastics, materials and dreams of dematerialization
Bernadette Bensaude Vincent
‘Plastics happen; that is all we need to know on earth.’ This remark is extracted from Gain, a novel by the American writer Richard Powers (1998: 395). The novel gives an account of a successful family business that has grown into an international chemical company. A woman, Laura Bodey, who lives nearby the chemical plant, finds she is dying from ovarian cancer, which is presumably induced by substances produced by the company. To her exhusband, who has advised her to sue the company, Laura replies that, even if the products manufactured by this plant did actually cause her condition, they have given her everything else and moulded her life. It is therefore impossible to balance the costs and gains of plastics. In her view, it does not make sense to blame plastics because they are an integral part of our world, of our lives.
In quoting Laura’s reply in Gain, Philip Ball (2007: 115) comments that, ‘Plastic stands proxy for all our technologies: Plastics generated an entire industrial ecosystem, a technological large-scale-system, which can no longer be controlled’. Taking Ball’s stance in a different direction, in this chapter I will argue that plastics have also shaped a new concept of technological design and a specific relation between humans and materials. In particular, they have encouraged the dream of dematerialized and disposable artefacts.
Plastics are more than just ubiquitous manufactured products that are used all over the world. As plastics began to spread in the daily experience of billions of people, new concepts of design were developed that reshaped our view of nature and technology. The phrase ‘Plastic Age’ – often used to characterize the twentieth century – has been modelled on the epochal categories of Stone Age and Iron Age. Such phrases suggest that the materials used for making artefacts shape civilizations, and that new materials propel a new age. Although our experience of materials is often occulted in daily life by the prevalence of the shapes and functions of the artefacts we use – phones, computers, automotive cars, aircraft – materials do matter. They are the core of technological advances and artistic creations; they drive economic exchange and the social distribution of wealth. Each substitution of a material for another one – for instance, iron, aluminium and plastics – engages new relations between nature and artifice, and determines specific relations between science and technology. Cultural historians have described the interaction between plastics and American civilization. For Robert Sklar (1970), the Plastic Age started after World War I when the traditional values of refined society gave way to mass culture, while Jeffrey Meikle (1995) convincingly argues that plastics gradually came to be identified with the American way of life and culture in the second half of the twentieth century, with the emergence of new aesthetics and new societal values.
This chapter aims to provide a better understanding of the interplay between the materiality of plastics and their anthropological dimensions. Previous materials, such as glass, wood and aluminium, are referred to by the name of the stuff of which they are made. By contrast, the common name of synthetic polymers derives from one of their physical properties. The adjective ‘plastic’ may be a predicate of humans as much as it is of things. The phrase ‘Plastic Age’ was already in use in the 1920s in the title of a film, and seems to refer to the malleable teenage years, when someone can be changed through life experience. A few years later, in his Chemistry Triumphant, William J. Hale announced the ‘Silico-Plastic Age’ (Hale 1932). The linguistic preference for the term ‘plastic’ is an indicator that plasticity gained a cultural meaning in the twentieth century. This requires a closer look at the physical and chemical properties of the class of materials gathered under the umbrella ‘plastics’, as well as at their production process. The entanglement between material, technical and cultural aspects shapes artefacts themselves, and reconfigures the relationship between nature, artefacts and culture.
Following a brief historical sketch about the emergence of plastics-as-plastics and reinforced plastics, the chapter will describe how synthetic polymers contributed to the emergence of a new relationship between technology and matter as they generated the concept of materials by design and ‘materials thinking’ – a new approach to materials in technological design. The next section looks more closely at the cultural values associated with the mass consumption of plastics, such as lightness, superficiality, versatility and impermanence. I will emphasize the utopian dimension of plastics and the striking contrast between the aspirations to dematerialization or impermanence and the neglected process of material accumulation upstream and downstream, which are respectively the precondition and the consequence of the Plastic Age. Finally, taking up the traditional issue of the relations between the natural and the artificial, I will consider how plastics are reconfiguring the contemporary vision of nature.
Expanding technological capabilities
In the twentieth century, plastics have replaced and displaced wood and metals in many commercial applications. This was by no means a natural and easy movement of substitution. While natural gums and resins such as gutta percha were manufactured in the nineteenth century for their insulating properties in electrical appliances, semi-synthetic polymers – such as Parkesine, presented by Alexander Parkes at the London World Exhibition in 1862, and the celluloid manufactured by John Wesley and Isaiah Hyatt in the 1870s – were promoted as alternatives to more conventional solid materials. Lightness and versatility were their most striking novelty. Celluloid was described as a ‘chameleon material’ that could imitate tortoise-shell, amber, coral, marble, jade, onyx and other natural materials. It could be used for making various things, such as combs, buttons, collars and cuffs, and billiard balls. However, as the historian Robert Friedel (1983) argues, Parkesine and celluloid did not bring about a revolution and did not easily overtake more traditional materials. Celluloid was viewed as just one of myriad ‘useful additions to the arts’ (Friedel 1983: xvi). Iron, glass and cotton continued to be produced in the millions of tons, while the light celluloid never exceeded hundreds of tons. In addition, the fact that celluloid made out of cellulose and camphor could be given a variety of shapes, colours and uses did not strike consumers as a sign of superiority; on the contrary, its versatile and multipurpose nature was viewed as a major imperfection.
The alliance between one material and one function – still visible in common language when we use phrases such as ‘a glass of wine’ – was seen as a mark of superiority. This traditional view of nature was reminiscent of Aristotle’s view when he claimed that the knives fashioned by the craftsmen of Delphi for many uses were inferior to nature’s works because ‘she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made when intended for one and not for many uses’ (Aristotle n.d.: 1252b). In this traditional view, multifunctional instruments are for barbarians who don’t care for perfection, whereas distinction and discrimination signify the perfection and generosity of nature. Eventually – and despite its flammability – celluloid managed to win a place on the market when it was recognized that it was ideal for a number of applications, such as photographic films. Materials meeting all demands, purposes and tastes were not regarded as dignified. Far from being praised as a quality, plasticity was the hallmark of cheap substitutes, forever doomed to imitate more authentic, natural materials. It is only in retrospect, in view of the ways of life and the values generated during the Plastic Age, that we have come to value multifunctional artefacts.
Today, plastics are no longer considered cheap substitutes. They are praised because they can be moulded easily into a large variety of forms and remain relatively stable in their manufactured form. Certainly, the success of plastics-as-plastics is due to the active campaigns of marketing conducted by publicists who promoted them as materials of ‘protean adaptability’ that could meet all demands and bring comfort and luxury into everyone’s reach (Meikle 1995). Chemical companies in America presented plastics as a driving force towards the democratization of material goods. In the 1930s, chemical substitutes were also praised as pillars of social stability because they provided jobs and fed the market economy: ‘a plastic a day keeps depression away’ (Meikle 1995: 106).
Enhancing the performances of plastics
In addition to the social benefits expected from plastics, a number of technical aspects related to their process of production account for plastics overtaking more traditional materials. Wood and metals pre-exist the action of shaping them: wood is carved or sculpted; metals are ductile and malleable – they melt at high temperatures, then the molten metal can be cast in a mould or stamped in a press to form components into the desired size and shape. By contrast, plastics are synthesized and shaped simultaneously. The process of polymerization is initiated by bringing the raw materials together and heating them – it is not separate from moulding. In more philosophical terms, matter and form are generated in one single gesture. This specific process is due to the ability of carbon atoms to form covalent bonds with other carbon atoms or with different atoms. Thus, a chain of more than 100 carbon atoms can make a single macromolecule. The resulting thermosetting polymers are rigid, with remarkable mechanical properties; furthermore, unlike celluloid they are not heat sensitive. They are lightweight, have a high strength-to-weight ratio, are corrosion resistant, remain bio-inert, and have high thermal and electrical insulation properties. However, they cannot be reheated and moulded again. Soon, a newer category of polymers came on to the market: these form weaker chemical bonds, and consequently can be reheated, melted and reshaped. These thermoplastic polymers, such as the polyethylene manufactured in the 1930s, are less rigid and more plastic than thermosetting polymers.
The synthetic polymers manufactured after World War II were already more plastic than early plastics and thermoplastics – such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) – and undoubtedly had a wide spectrum of applications. However, the plasticity of plastics can still be enhanced because various ingredients are added to the raw materials and included in the process of polymerization. Pigments were regularly added to produce a variety of colours, which became a distinctive feature of plastic materials in the 1930s. Inorganic fillers of silica were also used to make cheaper materials. Other additives can improve various properties: thermal or UV (ultraviolet) stabilizers increase resistance to heat and light; plasticizers are added to make them more pliable or flexible (Andrady and Neal 2009); improved mechanical properties are obtained thanks to the addition of reinforcing fibres. Glass fibres were first added to reinforce plastics in the 1940s for military applications such as boats, aircraft and land mines (Mossman and Morris 1994). Reinforced plastics enabled expansion of the market in plastics in the 1950s for civil applications such as electric insulators and tankers. Initially, reinforced plastics were introduced for the purpose of weight saving and cost reduction in transport and handling. However, they generated a deep change in design, and facilitated a new approach to materials research.
Composites and materials by design
Because the mechanical properties of heterogeneous structures depend upon the quality of interface between the fibre and the polymer, it was crucial to develop additive substances favouring chemical bonds between glass and resin. The study of interfaces and surfaces consequently became a prime concern, and gradually reinforced plastics gave way to the general concept of composite material (Bensaude Vincent 1998). Although most commercial composites are made of a polymer matrix and a reinforcing fibre, composites may be made of metal and fibre. The concept of the composite that came out of plastics technology has been extended to all materials associating two phases in their structure where each one assumes a specific function: steel or iron is used as a support for toughness; plastics are useful for weight saving; and ceramics are included for heat resistance and stiffness. Creating a composite material means combining various properties that are mutually exclusive into one single structure. Composites were created initially in the 1960s for aerospace and military applications. In contrast to conventional materials with standard specifications and universal applications, they were developed with both the functional demands and the services expected from the manufactured products in mind. Such high-tech composite materials, designed for a specific task in a specific environment, are so unique that their status becomes more like that of artistic creations than standard commodities.
While reinforced plastics were aimed basically at adding the properties of glass fibre or higher-modulus carbon fibres to the plasticity of the polymer matrix, composites did reveal new possibilities and generated innovations. For instance, the substitution of old chrome-steel bumpers of the cars of the 1950s for plastic bumpers did not immediately entail the cost reduction that was expected because the composite had opened new avenues for change. Manufacturing and shaping the chrome steel were two successive operations; in the case of plastic they became one and the same process. Car designers were consequently free to curve the bumper along the line of the shell. Instead of a separate part that had to be manufactured independently and then welded to the car, the shell was integrated with the body of the car like a protective second skin. In addition to protection, other functions could similarly be integrated. Thus, ventilators and radiator grilles were combined with the same unit at the front. Integration proved useful because it reduced the number of parts and assembly steps. New concepts thus emerged that gradually integrated more and more functions into the same structural part. However, local change in the material structure of one part called for redesigning the whole automotive structure and, thanks to the synergy between structure, process and function, composites contributed to the development of a new specific approach to designing materials. The interaction of the four variables – structure, properties, performances and processes – is such that changes made in any of the four parameters can have a significant effect on the performance of the whole system and require a rethinking of the whole device. Engineers had to give up the traditional linear approach to innovation (‘given a set of functions, let’s find the properties required and then design the structure combining them’), and convert to ‘materials thinking’. They simultaneously had to envision structure, properties, performance and p...
