The corporate suppression of inventions, conspiracy ... · A physician in Lockport heard about it....

This article was downloaded by: [T&F Internal Users], [Mr Susan Cullen]On: 25 June 2013, At: 13:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Science as CulturePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csac20

The corporate suppression of inventions, conspiracytheories, and an ambivalent American dreamStephen Demeo a ba Visiting fellow at Harvard Universityb East Northport, 2 Oakledge Drive, NY, 11731, USA E-mail:Published online: 23 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Stephen Demeo (1996): The corporate suppression of inventions, conspiracy theories, and an ambivalentAmerican dream, Science as Culture, 6:2, 194-219

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505439609526464

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csac20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505439609526464

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE CORPORATE SUPPRESSION OFINVENTIONS, CONSPIRACYTHEORIES, AND AN AMBIVALENTAMERICAN DREAM

STEPHEN DEMEO

Most of us can recall a story, rumor, or conversation wehave had about an amazing invention being suppressed:

the engine that runs on water, an antigravity device, a cure forcancer, the light bulb that doesn't burn out. The first such storyI remember hearing was about an automobile that could run forhundreds of miles on very little gasoline; it was supposedly aprototype manufactured by one of the Big Three automobilecorporations. My initial response to this story was not skepticismbut a sense of wonder mixed with enthusiasm for progress. Anextremely efficient car would be great to have, I thought. Weren'ttechnological breakthroughs always occurring when you neededthem? Wasn't the automobile always getting better?

As astounded as I was, I subsequently felt discouraged and angrythat such a car was not being offered to the public which spent somuch time and money on expressways driving back and forth towork. In league with the oil cartel the automobile companies werelining their coffers at the expense of hardworking Americans:PROFIT MOTIVE SUPPRESSES INNOVATION. Something had to bedone about this.. . .Surely society would rise up and demand thatthe invention become public. . . . Wasn't this America, a nationwhere achieving "the good life" meant so much to so many?

Address correspondence to: Stephen DeMeo, 2 Oakledge Drive, EastNorthport, NY 11731, USA, e-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013

THE CORPORATE SUPPRESSION OF INVENTIONS 195

Stories of suppressed technologies—inventions that could po-tentially benefit society but are prevented or delayed in coming tomarket by some self-interest—are being recirculated continuallyin American culture. These stories occupy a special place in ourimagination, in our history, and in our society, not only as accountsrelating the control of specific inventions but as an expression ofimportant social values. Suppression narratives belong to a genrethat dramatizes the struggle between the public interest and privateself-interest. While there are many types of self-interest—relig-ious, individual, political, ethnic—here I will examine the suppres-sion of an invention by an economic interest such as a largecorporation or monopoly.

According to the well-known folklorist Jan Brunvand, the en-during popularity of some of America's most cherished legendsis due to three important elements: an interesting story line, abasis in actual belief, and a valuable message or moral (Brunvand,1981). I will demonstrate that all of Brunvand's criteria are foundin the suppression narrative and contend that the corporate sup-pression of invention is a rich narrative valued by society, onethat is important for scholars and cultural critics to examineclosely.

In the first part of this essay I will show that the suppressionnarrative is popularized throughout our culture as folklore inmovies, novels, and comic books. I will touch upon works fromsuch artists as David Mamet, Francis Ford Coppola, and ThomasPynchon and hint at some of the common characteristics that thesestories share. From here, I will establish that this narrative has abasis in reality—I will look at what historians like David Nobleand biographer Tom Lewis say about specific technologies beingsuppressed by big business. Lastly, I will investigate what thesuppression narrative says in general about Americans and aboutthe things we invent.

In discussing the explicit and implicit messages of this phenom-ena, I will focus on two main areas, the first being conspiracytheories. Integral to many of the suppression narratives, conspiracytheories are characterized by a polarized struggle, simplicity of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013

1 % SCIENCE AS CULTURE

argument, and the ability to explain unaccountable phenomena.They are relevant to this discussion because the theories are usedto relate why certain technologies are not available to the public.The second area involves what I call "an Ambivalent AmericanDream," a phrase that refers to flip sides of the suppressionnarrative: the hope of using technology to create social progress aswell as the disillusionment with existing technology, with largecorporations, and with our inability to achieve material wealth. Iwill draw upon an assortment of interpretations, such as one heldby the economist Thorstein Veblen, in order to show the varietyof critiques that are available to the reader.

• TALES FROM POPULAR CULTUREThe story about super car that I related at the opening of this essaywould be considered by most to be a legend, an example oftechnological populism. Jan Brunvand has documented such alegend in his book The Vanishing Hitchhiker (1981). He calls hisversion the 'Economical Car' and it centers on an article writtenby an Associated Press reporter about a car capable of running1,000 miles on a single tank of fuel. Supposedly a Ford dealeraccidentally sold a woman this experimental car and was attempt-ing to buy it back for $30,000 and a promise of secrecy. Thereporter, who went to great lengths in trying to cover this story,was unsuccessful in tracking down the source of the rumor andverifying its authenticity.

The following letter printed in a Buffalo newspaper in 1973 isanother version of the same legend, but one that involves fueltablets:

Editor: I am sick and tired of all this gasoline bunk on TV andradio and in the newspapers. You do not need gasoline to runyour car. I am 65 years old, and was married in 1936. Around1937, a young man, a senior in Gasport High School, discovereda way to use water for fuel instead of gasoline by putting achemical in it.

What it was I do not know. His dad would run his tractor up

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


to the well, pump his gas tank full of water, put a few tablets init and work in the fields all day.

A physician in Lockport heard about it. He talked to the youngman about it and had the young man patent it. The Standard OilCo. heard about it and bought the patent for $50,000 as all bigcompanies do. They buried it and that was the end of it.

If that ever got out, there would have been no gasolinestations. That was a million-dollar idea bought for $50,000. Afriend of mine used the chemically treated water in his car. Hesaid it ran like high-test gasoline. How come the government,and the newspapers, do not remember this? Right now with thegasoline shortage, this should be important, (quoted inAinsworth, 1976, p. 11-12)

The story of an economical or miracle car has surfaced repeatedlyover the years when gas prices have soared due to occasionalshortages. Other stories are even more eccentric. In 1991 onenewspaper published an account of a car that ran on the 'insolublenitrogenous acid, salts, pigments and ammonia fumes in humanurine' (quoted in Nexus, 1994, p. 49). The inventor, Morris Wil-helm, said that he got threatening letters and phone calls from bigoil companies and automobile manufactures in attempts to sup-press his 'peemobile'.

The movies are another good source of examples of technologi-cal suppression, especially involving automobiles. Three movieshave been fairly recently made based on this theme: David Ma-met's The Water Engine (1978); the suspense thriller The Formula(1981); and Francis Ford Coppola's Tucker. The Man and HisDream (1989).

Originally a radio play and later adapted to the stage and televi-sion, The Water Engine involves a young inventor, Charles Lang,who has made an engine that runs on distilled water. Set in Chicagoat the 1934 World's Fair Century of Progress exhibition, the storydramatizes Lang's futile attempts to bring his revolutionary inven-tion to market. He is eventually undermined by his own naiveteand overwhelmed by the power of big business.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013

198 SCIENCE AS CULTURE

The movie The Formula is based on a book written by SteveShagan, and stars Marlon Brando, George C. Scott, and JohnGielgud. George C. Scott plays a Los Angeles detective whoultimately uncovers a plot by the oil cartel to suppress a formulafor making a synthetic, nonpolluting gasoline which costs less tomanufacture than competing fuels. The plot, rife with murders anddouble crosses, involves an elderly German scientist who inventedthe process during World War II and culminates with a grippingshowdown between Scott and a greedy oil baron played by Brando.Coppola's movie is a liberal rendering of the life of Preston Tucker,manufacturer of the short lived 1948 Tucker Automobile. Themovie is quite explicit in accusing the Big Three automobilemanufacturers of impeding and eventually blocking mass produc-tion of a car known for its advanced automobile design.

One reason for the strong presence of automobiles in narrativesof suppression is of course economic. A car is an expensive objectto purchase, maintain, and insure: it represents one of the mostsignificant capital investments that a person makes in life. Theprice of gasoline is also a concern; it has been increasing for yearsand occasionally it rises sharply when shortages occur. The rumorthat a gas-saving device or a more efficient engine has beensuppressed reveals the financial apprehension that many feel aboutmaintaining expensive objects like automobiles. For example, theoil and automobile companies would have good reason to suppressinvention because they have so much capital tied up in theirindustries and would have much more to lose if a new engine orfuel were invented than would other manufacturers who make lessexpensive products.

There are many more tales in popular culture of inventionsbeing suppressed by big business. In the 1928 novel for boys TomSwift and His Talking Pictures, representatives of the motionpicture industry attempt to destroy Tom's newest invention, anapparatus that broadcasts the sight and sound of live events, aversion of the modern television. Often shown on American tele-vision is the British movie The Man in the White Suit (1951). Itis about a synthetic fabric that never wears out and never gets

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


The well-fed face of the capitalist as portrayed by Marlon Brando in The For-mula. (Motion Picture Advertisement from The Formula, 1981).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013

200 , SCIENCE AS CULTURE

dirty, and how it affects the companies' management and laborforce, both of whom want to suppress the invention for monetaryreasons. In his epic novel Gravity's Rainbow, (1973) ThomasPynchon comically describes the exploits of an energy carteltrying to replace a light bulb that never burns out In the movieRoboCop (1987), a prototype cyborg police officer is almostdestroyed by thugs who are hired by a high-ranking officer in thepolice department. By trying to destroy this cyborg, the officeris protecting his own company which manufactures an inferiorversion of a robotic cop. Lastly, in her mystery novel Snagged,Carol Higgins Clark's sleuth Regan Reilly investigates the murderof an inventor. She finds out that he has been silenced by a hosierycompany in an attempt to suppress his invention: a panty-hoseguaranteed to never snag, run, or rip.

Corporate suppression of invention has also found its way intocomic books. Mad magazine has used the subject in a spoof on themovie RoboCop and also on at least one other occasion in whichthey ridicule the tyranny of gadgets and their manufactures. Acollection of comic renditions of many of the legends Brunvandcompiled in The Vanishing Hitchhiker has recently been publish-ed. It is called The Big Book of Urban Legends and it features thestory of the Wonder Car.

Writer and producers of movies, novels, and comic books utilizethe subject of technological suppression for a variety of reasons.One important reason that many of them share is a belief in theplot's wide appeal to audiences of all ages and backgrounds. Theybelieve people will pay money to read, watch, and listen to a storythat is considered to be interesting, easy to comprehend, and willdeliver an emotionally charged experience.

Many of the suppression narratives include two-dimensionalmoral conflicts. In Tucker. The Man and His Dream, the viewer'semotional commitment is with the inventor who as an underdog istrying to bring to market a safer and more innovative automobilewhile being harassed by large, politically connected corporations.We ally ourselves with Tucker because he, like many of the loneinventors in these stories, possesses a range of positive qualities:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013

/ / [ That's remarkable! ]

And when you get it,have Engineering stripit down and examine itthoroughly! Have themfind out exactly whatmade it last so long!

Yes, sir!It couldrevolu-tionize

the wholeindustry!

J

Right! And we don't want tomake that same mistake again!

The aging monopolist instructs his young executive on the hazards of a revolu-tionary invention (Berg, 1994,p. 28). Mad Magazine and all related elementsare the property of E.C. Publications, ©1995. All rights reserved. Used with per-mission.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


he is intelligent, hardworking, altruistic, individualistic, commit-ted, enthusiastic, courageous, and idealistic. He is one of technol-ogy's heroes and when he fails to achieve the wealth and fame duehim, we empathize with his loss.

The antagonist, on the other hand, is easily disliked. The antago-nist is usually represented as a greedy capitalist who attempts, asin The Water Engine, to seduce the naive inventor first withcompliments, then with money and a contract, and, when that fails,finally with legal and physical intimidation. In The Formula, theantagonist is a heavy-set businessman, a corporate mobster, onewho goes so far as to command his henchmen to kill a detectiveon the trail of a suppressed invention. Disdain for the antagonistsstems less from their use of violence than from their unquenchabledesire for capital when in fact they already possess wealth. Theblack-and-white conflict between the clearly delineated roles ofthe characters is resolved predominately in favor of the antagonist,the corporate interest.

Although at times the inventor is victorious, as in Tom Swift andHis Talking Pictures, the success is usually only momentary; it iscommon wisdom that one lone inventor cannot stand for longagainst a giant corporation. The ability of the inventor to marshalsupport, to legally organize a network of peers against the corpo-ration, runs counter to the stereotypical assumptions of the narra-tive. Inventors align themselves psychologically with inanimateobjects, not with human beings. Because the inventor is thought tofollow an often eccentric, private vision—creating alone in his labor workshop—he does not possess the social skills to influenceothers and, therefore, usually falls victim to the many weapons ofthe corporation.

• THE HISTORICAL RECORDThe second of Brunvand's three elements that make legendspopular, a basis in actual belief, holds true for corporate suppres-sion of invention. There are examples in the historical record ofpurposeful delays of advanced technology by self-serving corpo-rate interests.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


Tom Lewis, author of Empire of the Air, tells the story ofinventor Edwin Howard Armstrong, who was responsible forcreating the system of FM radio broadcasting, a finer sounding andmore static free broadcast than that heard on AM radios. Arm-strong believed, as did the manufacturer General Electric, thatlisteners would trade in their existing AM radios for ones thatpossessed both AM and FM bands. But the development of FMradio was delayed by well-connected broadcast networks who felttheir profits threatened and wanted to maintain the status quo.Lewis contends that these networks used the Federal Communica-tion Commission, advertising, and television to 'hinder the post-war development of FM' (p. 301). Others like historian ThomasHughes (American Genesis, 1989) and biographer Lawrence Less-ing (Man of High Fidelity, 1956) relate similar tales of corporateinterests hindering the development of Armstrong's inventions.

Solar technology is also suspected of being suppressed. As a'clean' and cheap source of energy, solar technology has greatpotential in a world whose energy consumption is becominggreater and more expensive. Richard Munson, writing in theProgressive, has described how one small private company, So-larex, is trying to resist being purchased by large oil companies.Munson reports that twelve of the top twenty-five solar companiesare owned by large corporations with interests in oil. He citesAlfred Dougherty, director of the Federal Trade CommissionBureau of Competition, as saying: 'If [oil] companies controlsubstantial amounts of substitute fuels, and they act in their rationalself-interest, they may slow the pace of production of alternativefuels in order to protect the value of their oil and gas reserves'(quoted in Ridgeway, 1982, p. 344). Munson's concern withsuppression of solar technology is supported by Richard Dunford.In a 1987 article Dunford related how Mobil, Shell, and Exxonwere actively increasing research efforts into solar technologywhile at the same time taking out major advertisements in news-papers arguing the limitations of such a technology.

Dunford cites many more examples of suppression, all of whichcome from his examination of patent and antitrust law cases. One

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


case of interest involved Stimtech, a company that invented anelectronic pain-killing device. Stimtech was purchased in 1974 byJohnson & Johnson who promised that it would market the productworldwide but never did. The founders successfully sued Johnson& Johnson for 'fraud, breach of contract, and suppressing the useof the device because of the competition that it could constitute toJohnson & Johnson's established drug business' (Dunford, p. 521).

Recently, Mark Clark wrote an article for the journal Technologyand Culture in which he argues that the upper management of BellLabs and AT&T actively discouraged and delayed the develop-ment of the magnetic recording answering machine even afterprototype recorders were designed, tested to be the most advancedin the world, and were used successfully in the field and in someof Bell's central offices (1993). Ignoring even customer demand,management was ideologically opposed to the new invention.They feared that the recording device would change the entirenature of telephone conversations. It was thought that customerswould not want their voices to become a matter of record to beused in contractual situations. Moreover, the sense of an individ-ual's privacy would be jeopardized if private conversations wererecorded. Bell eventually manufactured an answering machine inthe 1950s, twenty years after the production of its successfulprotoype.

In his book America by Design (1977), David Noble cites thefluorescent lamp and the combined handset telephone as inven-tions that were purposely delayed in coming to market. Nobledoes not go into specific detail concerning these devices, butrather he outlines the historical factors that made possible thecorporate suppression of invention. Two important factors werethe migration of lone inventors to corporations for financial se-curity and the use of patents to create monopolies. With respectto the latter, patent laws were adopted into the Articles of Con-federation for the mutual benefit of society and the inventor. Forsociety it meant progress, a better life; for the inventor, it meanta personal and transferable monopoly over his invention for sev-enteen years.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


By the early twentieth century, the patent system changedgreatly. Instead of inventors, corporations became the chief recipi-ent of patents. Corporate strategy entailed buying and producingas many patents as possible to protect themselves against othercompanies entering their field. According to L. H. Baekeland, aBelgian-born chemist and inventor who called for patent reform,corporations would go to great lengths to acquire patents:

This game is so successfully played that I know of rich compa-nies here in the U.S. whose main method of procedure is tofrighten, bulldoze, and ruin finncially the unfortunate inventorwho happens to have a patent which he is not willing to concedeto them on their own terms; that is to say, for next to nothing,(quoted in Noble, 1977, p. 105)

By flooding one's field with patents as well as harassing competi-tors through patent-infringement suits, science-based corporationsused the patent system as an instrument of control and exploitation.Monopolies over patents were prolonged by a variety of methodsone being, 'the out-right suppression or delayed introduction ofpatented apparatus' (Noble, p. 93).

As initially conceived, the main purpose of a patent was to fostercommercial progress. Before corporate exploitation, progress waspromoted as intended by the patent system. Suppression of inven-tion was not an important concern since the inventor's self-interest(i.e., growing wealthy) was compatible with the public interest(i.e., using a labor saving device).

As corporations bought up patents from inventors and monopo-lized an industry, the interests of the corporation would at timescome into conflict with the public interest: the corporate suppres-sion of innovation was incompatible with the public's desire forprogress. This tension was evident in a writer's complaint publish-ed in the Iron Trade Review: 'by the process of suppressed inven-tion, this country, instead of enjoying the most efficient means ofcarrying on many activities, is today using appliances devised tento twenty years ago' (quoted in Noble, p. 106).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


One reason advanced technology was purposely delayed wasthat corporations lacked incentive: as monopolies that held all theimportant patents, they were already dominant in their fields andconsequently were usually resistant to change. Finally, Noblementioned that 'if a company did invest in something new, morethan likely it was in order to obtain some future bargaining advan-tage, and thus the immediate use of the patent was suppressed' (p.99).

In briefly relating Noble's work and other historical incidents ofcorporate suppression, I wanted to show that not all suppressionnarratives were fictitious tales from popular culture. Stories ofinventions being suppressed by corporate interests have been toldby authors who have closely examined history, the law, andpresent-day politics. Technological suppression does exist—it is areal phenomena.

Jan Brunvand's last reason for why certain legends endure thetest of time is that they communicate an impotant message or moralto the listener. I will now sketch out some of these messages,explicit messages that lie on the surface and ones that are deeper,that underpin the suppression narrative. I will begin by arguing thatthe use of conspiracy theories within the framework of suppressionnarratives is an indication of the anxiety we all have about certainaspects of technology and society.

• UNPACKING THE SUPPRESSION NARRATIVE PART I:CONSPIRACY THEORIES

On the surface, the story of the corporate suppression of inventionis an example of a conspiracy theory, and as such its purpose isto provide an explanation, namely, to explain why an inventionthat could benefit society was not made available to the public.A conspiracy theory, like the statement 'God did it', is one of thesimplest and most popular explanations for people to believe in.Conspiracy specialists argue that this type of explanation is usedto reduce cognitive complexity as well as anxiety for an individualor group trying to understand a difficult event (Graumann &Moscovici, 1987). Complexity is decreased by viewing the phe-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


nomena as a polarized struggle between society and a conspiringself-interest where right and wrong are easy to identify. Thenarrative of the corporate suppression of invention is based onsuch a duality—it is an example of an elementary explanationused in a time of crisis, a crisis usually between an inventorrepresenting the collective individual (the public) and a greedy,capitalistic self-interest. The lack of complexity in the conspiracyargument is also due to the secrecy and clandestine activitiessurrounding acts of suppression. Secrecy shrouds specificity, de-tail, and the ability of others to easily refute assertions made byconspiracy theorists.

Conspiracy theories are also used to minimize anxiety. Anxietyis reduced by simplifying the argument and also by identifyingthose who are responsible for an injustice. The evildoer, in thiscase big business, is no longer undefinable and omnipresent; one'sanger can now be fully expressed and targeted at a specific enemy.By localizing responsibility to a corporate interest and not to thepublic, the suppression theorist also successfully defends his egofrom blame. It never dawns on the theorist to take responsibility,to look inward and question why he is dependent upon an inventionas a means to a better life.

While the focusing on corporate conspiracies rationalizes theinability of the individual to control the turns of life, it alsomaintains the capitalistic world view. The use of corporate con-spiracies to explain the unavailability of a product is at heart acapitalistic explanation. By relying on such an explanation otherssuch as a Marxist or socialist critique are denied.

Very possible the suppression of a specific, more efficient wid-get is not the real dilemma. Wouldn't it be interesting instead totake a larger view and question how goods are distributed andutilized among the populace in a capital-driven society, or to askthe more paranoid question: Is corporate conspiracy just anothermeans by which capitalistic powers keep us from questioning theSystem? Whatever the answer, it is clear that corporate suppressionconspiracies are a result of being born, bred, and entangled in acapitalistic society.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


Tom Swift and His Talking Pictures

'In exchange for the million we will agree to give you, you, on your part,will hand over to us all patent and other papers, including sketches,designs, patterns and blue prints of your so-called talking-picture ma-chine. In short, you will turn the complete invention over to us, and furthermake a promise.'

'What sort of a promise?''A promise to go no further in that field. In other words, you will forget

that such a machine is capable of being made. You will wipe it out of yourmind after you have turned all your rights in it over to us.'

'And may I inquire what you will do with my machine when you getit?' asked Tom, with a curious smile as he shifted about in his chair, asthough it was no longer comfortable. 'If you do get it in exchange for amillion dollars,' he added.

'We'll burn it up—destroy it!' excitedly cried Mr. B.Tom Swift could not help starting in surprise. The answer was not quite

what he had expected. He looked for confirmation toward the masked Mr.X, thinking the big man might have spoken impulsively. But, somewhatto the astonishment of the young inventor, the leader nodded in assent.

'Once you turn your invention over to us in exchange for the milliondollars,' stated Mr. X, 'it becomes our exclusive property for us to do withas we please. And, very likely, we shall destroy it.'

'What for?' Tom could not help impulsively asking.'To prevent our business from being ruined, young man! That's why!'

burst our Mr. B. 'Do you think,' he went on in spite of the effort Mr. Xmade to silence him, 'we want people to stay at home listening to musicand seeing pictures of a performance on your screen? Where would webe if millions of people did about pictures what they are doing right nowwith their radio receivers? We'd be ruined in six months and we havemillions tied up in our theaters—millions! No, sir. Once we get yourmachine we'll destroy it!'

Conspiracy theories always involve a minority that is perceivedas conspiring against the majority. In Tom Swift and His TalkingPictures, wealthy theater and motion picture owners are afraid oflosing profits from a invention that will bring entertainment intomillions of people's homes. In attempting to destroy this invention,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


they conspire against the public's well-being. We, as potentialconsumers of this new device, are outraged by their behaviorbecause an invention that could very possibly benefit society isprevented from reaching 'all of us' by 'some of them'.

As a potential panacea for social ills, an invention represents abetter life for the greater good and therefore, should not be pur-posely terminated or delayed by self-serving groups such as largecorporations. The notion of 'public virtue'—the eighteenth-cen-tury republican idea that the minority should repress personaldesires for the benefit of the majority—is ignored in favor ofselfishness (Kasson, 1976). Because social harmony is disruptedwhen a self-interest breaks the bond of mutual responsibility, thereis a rising fear that more will follow their own personal destinies,that the political and ethical foundations of community will disin-tegrate only to be replaced by a chaotic every-man-for-himself lawof survival.

The minority as portrayed in a conspiracy theory represents achallenge to societal norms. 'Public virtue', that which is sacro-sanct, is transgressed by the corporation. The breaking of this tabooprovokes contempt and fear in the majority, and ultimately thecorporation is renounced.

While a discussion of conspiracy theories has clarified someaspects of the suppression narrative* there are some additionalassumptions and subtleties that must be mentioned. I will initiatethis analysis by organizing them into two groups by opposingperspectives: an optimistic view of technology and society on onehand and disillusionment on the other. While this grouping mightbe considered an oversimplification of complex cultural con-structs, it is done here to promote understanding and clarificationat the extremes. I believe that the tension between these two poles,hope and disillusionment, is one reason that the suppression nar-rative can be so engrossing and emotionally charged to experience.In an attempt to capture this tension, I will ultimately argue howthe deep-rooted passion for a better, self-made life is perceived bythe individual to be put in jeopardy by big business, an attitude Icall "an Ambivalent American Dream."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


• UNPACKING THE SUPPRESSION NARRATIVE PART II:AN AMBIVALENT AMERICAN DREAM

Embedded in narratives of suppression is a hopeful feeling abouttechnology. In the movie The Man in the White Suit, one characterenthusiastically and sincerely describes the positive impact that anindestructable fabric could have on society:

Don't you understand what this means, millions of people allover the world living lives of drudgery fighting an endless losingbattle against shabbiness and dirt. You've won that battle forthem. You've set them free. The whole world is going to blessyou.

Suppressed inventions are thought to potentially liberate individu-als from a world which is expensive, dangerous, transitory, andnecessary to maintain to one which is cheaper, safer, long lasting,and maintenance-free. The car that runs on water would save ustime and money spent on the many return trips to the gas stationas well as curb air pollution. A highly efficient cyborg policeofficer like that portrayed in the secience fiction movie RoboCopwould allow citizens to save money that would normally go tosecurity systems, crime reduction programs, and insurance com-panies. A light bulb that lasts forever and uses little energy as wellas solar powered products would reduce the monthly electric billand would be environmentally friendly. No-snag panty hose wouldsave women replacement costs as well as the embarrassment of'unsightly runs'. And in terms of art and entertainment, the inven-tion of FM radio brought a greater variety of music, news, and talkfor listeners to choose from. While these inventions vary on levelsof importance—eliminating stocking runs pales in comparison toa crimeless world secured by cyborgs—the point is that the benefitsfrom these inventions would be exchanged for personal gains incapital, time, or energy that ideally could be used for self-improve-ment. The type of improvement—cultural, physical, or profes-sional—would be ours to choose.

The benefits that I suggest are rational ones, but are they the ones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


that the inventors had in mind? Did the inventors create in orderto bring to market a more efficient, cheaper product or to promotenew social relations? In other words, is the value of the inventiontied to profit or to its function within society? Some of the inventorsor their allies, as in the movie Man in the White Suit, look at theirinventions as objects that will create a better society by freeing usfrom the slavery of manual work. Their moral overtones, indiffer-ence to profit, and desire to make their invention available to allare evidence that the inventors believe their products will predomi-nately achieve a social rather than a monetary change. Othersdepicted in popular culture see the invention more as a capitalisticobject: to the corporation, the invention will threaten profits; to theconsumer, it will save them money. Suppression narratives raiseour consciousness that someone is ripping us off. But what exactlyis being denied to us as readers/consumers: the inventors' dreamsor dreams of capi tal ?

Let us look at invention from the perspective of the idealisticinventor. Stories of corporate suppression of technology couldsuggest that we wish to live in an ideal world, one filled withautonomous technologies that never die, never wear out, and neverinterrupt our lives. This wish is not a new one: dreams of atechnological Utopia have been with us for years. Many Europeanas well as American writers have expressed their visions of an idealsociety in a variety of literary works. Some of the Americantechnological Utopias include: Edward Bellamy's Looking Back-ward (1888), John Bachelder's A.D. 2050 (1890), King CampGillette's The Human Drift (1894), Herman Brinsmade's UtopiaAchieved (1912), Harold Loeb's Life in a Technocracy (1933), andmore recently Buckminster Fuller's Utopia or Oblivion (1969).

Unlike many of the Europeans, American authors stress theimportance of technology, believing that technological advancewould be a panacea for ridding society of its problems. Manymodeled their Utopias after machines and structures that wouldalter America's vast natural resources into material wealth for allto enjoy. In so doing, they equated technological progress withsocial progress (Segal, 1985). This belief lies below the surface of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


the suppression narrative. We become angry not only because aninvention is unavailable, but because a better life is unattainable.In a society surrounded by technomarvels—the Space Shuttle, theskyscraper, the gigabyte notebook computer, the CAT scan—it iseasy to believe that anything is possible. The dismay and angerexpressed by the idealistic inventor as well as the audience wit-nessing the suppression, reveal our strong reliance upon technol-ogy for improving our society.

One observation I would like to make about many of the sup-pressed inventions that have been mentioned thus far is howwnrevolutionary they seem to be. Many are not earthshakingdevices, because they are improved versions of existing technol-ogy. And this is exactly the reason for such optimism. It is all tooeasy to believe that improvements can be made with a few changeshere and a little more lab work there.

The character Tom Swift was able to make his talking picturemachine by combining two preexisting technologies, radio andsilent film. He accomplished this feat by simple perseverance andhard work, not by collaboration with other inventors, studying foryears at a university, by a single flash of divine inspiration, nor byan opportunistic accident. Other suppression narratives have simi-lar plots which stress that an inventor's diligent work ethic, morethan any other quality, drives invention.

The storytellers' message is clean anyone can be a successfulinventor if they just work at something hard enough. The closerelationship to existing technology and the humble "recipe-like"means for creating such technology indicate that we as a societyare very close to some of our inventions, so close in fact that wecan anticipate their future designs as well as convince ourselvesthat these designs are possible.

The anger that reveals a reliance on invention also exposes adisillusionment with technology and society. As I examine thisdifferent attitude, I will discuss some key ideas associated with thisperspective: the disappointment we have with current technology,our fear of the bureaucratic corporation, and the anxiety we feelconcerning our inability to procure the fruits of our labor.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


Technological suppression springs from a frustration with exist-ing technology: 'We can put a man on the moon but we can't makea car that doesn't eat gas... Will I ever stop replacing razor blades?Why can't they make panty hose that don't run? These new longlasting light bulbs aren't bright enough, and the old ones alwayshave to be replaced.'

Many objects are just not good enough; they cry out for im-provement. Others need maintenance, fixing, adjustments, tune-ups—all of which take time, money, and patience. This leavesone feeling that the objects we use are draining us in someparasitic way, that we are no longer psychologically independentfrom the things we create. We become anxious knowing that wehave lost control of our inventions and that they have in somesense gained control of us. We are Dr. Frankenstein pursued byour monstrous creations.

Leo Marx, in an essay found in the book Technology, Pessimism,and Postmodernism, used the term 'technological pessimism' torefer to the sense of disappointment, anxiety and menace thatpeople attribute to technology (Marx, 1994, p. 11). In the case oftechnological suppression, it is how technology is not used that isto blame for the pessimistic turn in the suppression narrative.Society's disappointment is with a minority that controls newtechnology and how inferior technology is perpetuated in theworld.

Historically, corporations have resorted to an assortment ofabuses to maximize profits: swallowing up small companies, pricegouging, the manipulation of the stock market, creating artificialshortages, bribing legislators and officials, as well as delaying,warehousing, or ruining an innovative technology. Consequently,the stories about giant corporations from history and culture haveinstilled fear in many people. These stories reveal the power thatis yielded by large corporations and their ability to commandalmost unlimited financial and political resources to protect theirinterests.

Borrowing an image from Sinclair Lewis, big business is like agiant octopus whose tentacles stretch as far as the eye can see. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


immense size of some corporations, the multinationals and con-glomerates, is one reason that the story of technological suppres-sion is a paranoid one. The monopolistic corporation is thought tobe everywhere, capable of anything, unaccountable, controllinginnovation, with its eyes always on the watch for potential compe-tition. The sprawling industrial corporation is often thought of asan enormous bureaucracy, a paper mill of managers and adminis-trators all wearing short haircuts and dark business suits.

Looking in from the outside, it appears that some of our mostimportant human qualities such as spirit, drive, and creativity aremissing from a large organization. In their place, complacency,mediocrity, and conformity are considered to be the norm. Thereis a fear when joining a corporation that our humanity will belost: the corporation will replace our individual uniqueness andour shared social customs with their materialist world view—wewill be incorporated into an alien life. Ralph Hummel, author ofThe Bureaucratic Experience, discusses how damaging the in-doctrination into a large corporation can be to an individual'sself-concept.

The bureaucratic experience is marked not only by pain but byloss. Modern organization does not merely attack our psyche. Itputs in question whether we can still have a psyche. Modernorganization challenges not simply our psyche, it puts in ques-tion what kind of being we have: who or what we are. Thebureaucratic experience is not most fundamentally the experi-ence of deadened feelings that explode into pain. The pain arisesprecisely because we face being nothing and nobody. (1987, p.142)

One aspect of the bureaucratic experience is described by the novelistThomas Pynchon in a small scene from his novel The Crying of Lot 49.His character, Stanley Koteks—an engineer working for a largemilitary company—believes that relinquishing patient rights to acorporation adversely affects individual creativity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


'See,' Koteks said, 'if you can get them to drop their clause onpatents. That, lady, is my ax to grind.'

'Patents', Oedipa said. Koteks explained how every engi-neer, in signing the Yoyodyne contract, also signed away thepatent rights to any inventions he might come up with.

'This stifles your really creative engineer,' Koteks said,adding bitterly, 'wherever he may be.'

'I didn't think people invented any more,' said Oedipa,sensing this would goad him. 'I mean, who's there been, really,since Thomas Edison? Isn't it all teamwork now?' BloodyChiclitz, in his welcoming speech this morning, had stressedteamwork.

'Teamwork,' Koteks snarled, 'is one word for it, yeah.What it really is is a way to avoid responsibility. It's a symptomof the gutlessness of the whole society.' (p. 61)

In a similar but historical vein, David Noble relates how loneinventors lost some of their creative spirit when they gave upworking for themselves and joined corporations. In a large researchcomplex or industrial laboratory newly hired inventors were notallowed to 'exploit the fruit of their inventiveness, nor even toexercise that inventiveness fully' (Noble, 1977, p. 101). An inven-tor's genius was not nurtured because the rights of his inventionswere no longer his property, they were the corporation's. Conse-quently, when lone inventors joined corporations, they lost part oftheir identities. From self-employed, self-motivated visionaries,they became one of many nine-to-five employees told to worktogether as a team.

It is clear that invention and capitalism do not always comple-ment each other. The bureaucratic corporation can stymie anemployee's ability to create innovative and revenue producinginventions. In The Engineers and the Price System, the economistThorstein Veblen tried to explain this apparent contradiction be-tween capitalism and invention. He argued that the cause was theincreased specialization and complexity of industry and to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


marked division and subordination of the industrial experts, theengineers, to the business managers within a corporation.

Veblen believed that the business managers, he called them theCaptains of Finance, based their manufacturing decisions on the'conscientious withdrawal of efficiency,' meaning that productionwas always kept just below capacity in order to ensure that allgoods would be sold at the largest obtainable price (Veblen, 1983,p. 38). Veblen viewed the business managers as strictly beinginterested in optimizing profits for their corporations, the 'vestedinterests', regardless of the intentions of the industrial experts, theengineers, who created the inventions and who had at heart thematerial welfare of the public. To combat the 'vested interest,'Veblen believed that the engineers should organize, negotiate,bargain, and even strike in order to control production for thebenefit of the common good.

The fear of losing one's self or important aspects of one'sidentity to the corporation is wrapped up with anxiety of beingcontrolled, thinking that we are no longer makers of our owndestinies but part of a powerful organization. This is why narrativesof independent inventors being exploited by corporations, or en-gineers being controlled by financial managers touch so manyreaders. The suppression narrative emphasizes the struggle andultimate failure of the inventor/engineer to enjoy personal freedomand achieve financial success, in other words, to achieve theAmerican Dream.

We, the public, identify with the individual who is trying againstgreat odds to assert himself and improve his lot in life. We areempathetic to the inventor's tragedy of losing power over what hehas invented and never achieving the material wealth and fame dueto him. It is clear that the playing field of invention is uneven andthat there is no sense of fair competition.

From that perspective, free-enterprise capitalism is crushed un-der the financial and political power of corporations whose goal isto monopolize an industry. Lifting yourself up by the bootstraps,by hard work and intelligence, only to be denied access to therewards of your labor is the American Nightmare. The once great

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


hope and belief in America as the Land of Opportunity where aperson can make his fortune by ingenuity and the sweat of his browis now called into question. Faith is coupled with Doubt; theAmerican Dream has been recast within the suppression narrativeto capture the apparent ambivalence that our society has towardtechnology and the ability to achieve material success.

• CONCLUSIONIt is clear that stories of corporate suppression are being broughtto the attention of the public by folklorists, major artists andrespected historians and researchers. This suggests that corporatesuppression is not just an interesting but ultimately insignificantevent that should be removed to a shelf designated for fringeconspiracy theories. Rather, the narrative is an enduring story thatexposes certain important ideas and norms of American culture.Moreover, it fulfills the three criteria that Brunvand stipulates fora legend to become popularized into a society's folklore: thesuppression narrative is interesting and wide spread, it is based infact, and it expresses important messages about society and tech-nology. In trying to unpack this narrative, I have suggested thatcorporate suppression of invention, as I have defined it, is anexample of a conspiracy theory that underscores one type ofstruggle between public and corporate interests for future technol-ogy. Underpinning this struggle is an Ambivalent AmericanDream: a sense of optimism we have toward invention as well asa disillusionment with existing technology, large corporations, andour inability to achieve individual prosperity.

The social psychologist Carl Graumann believes that conspiracytheories appear in time of crisis. This observation is supported byfolklorists like Catherine Ainsworth who documented the rise ofautomobile suppression stories during the 1970s energy crisiswhen the price of gasoline rose sharply in the United States. I wantto suggest, based on the popularity of the corporate suppressionnarrative in our culture today, that we are in another type of crisisthan the one Ainsworth mentioned.

Values dear to society, such as the ones wrapped up in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


'suppression' narrative—public virtue, technological optimism,individuality, creative expression, the American Dream, free en-terprise—are perceived as threatened by big business; this percep-tion is well justified in some cases. By its powerful ability todevelop as well as to suppress invention, the giant industrialcorporation has become the conspiratorial target at which thepublic aims its own resentment. The 'suppression' narrative tellsus that our confidence in technology to achieve social progress ismixed with anxieties about the present. Our anxieties concern whatwe fear we are losing: technological innovation, and the deep-rooted assumptions upon which we base our lives, as individualsand as members of American society.

• ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis essay would not have been possible without the support of Pam Fallon,Harvard, and MIT university libraries, and the many helpful users of the Internet.I would like especially to thank Rosalind Williams at MIT who took time outof her busy schedule to discuss this essay with me as it was being developed.

• REFERENCESAinsworth, C. H. (1976) 'Gasoline folklore', New York Folklore, 2:111-113.Appleton, V. (1928) Tom Swift and His Talking Pictures or The Greatest

Invention on Record. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.Berg, D. (1994) 'The lighter side of gadgets', Mad (March) p. 28.Brunvand, J. H. (1981) The Vanishing Hitchhiker. American Urban Legends

and Their Meaning. New York: W. W. Norton.Clark, C. H. (1993) Snagged. New York: Warner Books.Clark, M. (1993) 'Suppressing invention: Bell laboratories and magnetic record-

ing', Technology and Culture, 34(3):516-538.Dunford, R. (1987) 'The Suppression of technology as a strategy for controlling

resource dependence', Administrative Science Quarterly, 32 (Decem-ber):512-525.

Eisen, J. (1994) 'A short discourse on some theories of suppression', in J. Eisen,ed. Suppressed Inventions and Other Discoveries. Auckland, New Zealand:Auckland Institute of Technology Press.

Graumann, C. F. & Moscovici, S., eds. (1987) Changing Conceptions ofConspiracy. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hannigan, E. (1994) 'The wonder car', in R. L. Fleming & R. F. Boyd, Jr., eds.The Big Book of Urban Legends. New York: Paradox Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013


Hughes, T. P. (1989) American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Techno-logical Enthusiasm. New York: Penguin Books.

Hummel, R. (1987) The Bureaucratic Experience, 3rd ed. New York: St.Martin's Press.

Kasson, J. F. (1976) Civilizing the Machine. New York: Grossman Publishers.Lessing, L. (1969) Man of High Fidelity: Edwin Howard Armstrong. New York:

Bantam Books.Lewis, T. (1991) Empire of the Air. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Mamet, D. (1978) The Water Engine: An American Fable and Mr. Happiness.

New York: Grove Press.Marx, L. (1994) 'The idea of "technology" and postmoden pessimism', in Y.

Ezrahi, E. Mendelsohn and H. Segal, eds. Technology, Pessimism andPostmodernism. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Nexus (1994) 'The Car that Runs on Human Urine', Nexus, 2(23);49.Noble, D. (1977) America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of

Corporate Capitalism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Pynchon, T. (1973) Gravity's Rainbow. New York: Viking Press.Pynchon, T. (1982) The Crying of Lot 49. New York: Bantam Books.Ridgeway, J. (1982) Powering Civilization: The Complete Energy Reader. New

York Pantheon Books, pp. 343-348.RoboCop (1987) Los Angeles, CA: Orion Pictures.Segal, H. P. (1985) Technological Utopianism in American Culture. Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press.The Man in the White Suit (1951) London: Ealing Studios.The Formula [videorecording] (1981) Culver City, CA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Inc.Tucker: The Man and His Dream [videorecording] (1989) Hollywood, CA:

Paramount Pictures.Veblen, T. (1983) The Engineers and the Price System. London: Transaction

Books.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Mr

Susa

n C

ulle

n] a

t 13:

56 2

5 Ju

ne 2

013

The corporate suppression of inventions, conspiracy ... · A physician in Lockport heard about it....

Documents

Transcript of The corporate suppression of inventions, conspiracy ... · A physician in Lockport heard about it....