(UPDATED FROM 8/7/2020)
I enjoy reading automotive designers talk about what it was like to back in the 1960s. A part of me is interested purely for the nostalgia of it all. But another part of me — and a big reason why I publish Indie Auto — is to better understand the decline of U.S. automakers. My goal isn’t to point fingers at individuals, but to learn from the past. This could help us to better navigate the future.
That’s why I am fascinated by a late-60s promotional video that has made the blogospheric rounds. The Design Makers — Inside Ford Design, was first posted by Hemmings (Strohl, 2013). A few weeks later the 21-minute film by the Ford Motor Company was also posted by Dean’s Garage (Smith, 2013).
What I found most striking about the posts is how little attention was paid to a basic question: How much has — and hasn’t — the professional culture of auto design changed over the last 50 years?
In another story I will discuss the car designs shown in the film (go here). In this post I will focus is on how the film — and comments about it — illustrate a professional culture that is out of touch with the marketplace. This insularity can be seen in four ways.
1. It’s a man’s profession
As you might expect, the film displayed 1960s-style sexism. Car design was presented as solely a man’s job. This was made clear partly by the lack of women shown in design studios — except for a lone notetaker. In addition, the narrator spoke about the design process in starkly gendered terms.
A film like this couldn’t be made today without a public backlash. Yet none of the commentators on either post raised this point.
“The market is comprised of many, many men, so when we design for the market we do, in a sense, design for the man.”
Might that have something to do with women being almost nonexistent on automotive blogs? This is despite American women purchasing 62 percent of new cars and influencing 85 percent of all car purchases (Newman, 2019).
Also see ‘Surveys find sexism still powerful in auto industry’
Perhaps. But it should also be noted that the auto industry is still dominated by men. As a case in point, in recent decades women have started to enter the design field. However, Chris Livaudais, executive director of the Industrial Designers Society of America, estimated that only 25-to-35 percent of the group’s members are women (Yeager, 2018).
How can an industry adequately meet the needs of buyers when its designers do not reflect the diversity of the market?
2. Racial tokenism and the exotic ‘other’
The 1960s were dominated by racial conflict, so it would make sense for Ford to champion a diverse workforce. However, only one of the designers interviewed was an African-American man. He appeared toward the end of the film. This could be interpreted as tokenism (Wikipedia, 2013).
Just as importantly, I didn’t see any other person of color in the design studios. How could that be given the large African-American population in Motor City?
The Black designer is also presented as the exotic other. He is the only person in the film who is shown in his off-hours working as an artist. In contrast, the white designers are filmed doing more conventional activities such as shopping, car racing and sailing.
“Form can be almost like a religion. You either believe in it or you don’t. I sometimes think of a car as an object related to sculpture; the sculpture that I do and the sculpture that I see.”
In a Hemmings comment, Anthony Rogers (2013) stated that the Black man in the film was his deceased father, George Rogers. He is described as the first African-American clay modeler in Ford history and an accomplished Detroit artist.
A now-deactivated website devoted to George’s work included a republished article that discussed him and five other African-Americans involved in the design of the Ford Mustang II. Their “significant contributions” to the car were described as a “break with once engrained traditions” of Detroit’s automakers (Rogers, 2013).
3. Can you live the dream while staying in touch?
This brings us to the issue of class. A major theme of the film is that one’s life informs one’s designs. Yet most of the scenes of designers outside of work reflect decidedly affluent lifestyles.
“What feeds the creative mind, the searching mind of Ford designers who are designing all the time? Growing. Learning. Making the connection between their life and their work.”
A recruitment film would do well to emphasize how you can make a good living as a car designer. But the downside of linking affluence so closely to the design process is that those who are out of touch with the daily experience of less affluent people could have a harder time meeting their needs.
Also see ‘Lee Iacocca got lucky with the 1964-66 Ford Mustang’
I would argue that Detroit’s biggest failures in the post-WWII era involved emphasizing bigger, glitzier and more powerful vehicles over the practical concerns of regular folks.
4. Responding to homophobia with indifference
The comments in both posts focused on the cars and designers shown. However, Hemmings reader Zig Williams (2013) criticized a statement in the film (shown below) as “dated, ugly machismo gay-hating stuff.”
“A lot of people think the designer is some kind of fruitcake running around picking out curtains. . . .”
Dan (2013) responded by saying, “Really? Plenty of blogs out there for that topic, this blog is for car guys!”
Dan’s response illustrates one of the things I dislike about the auto buff media — an unwillingness to deal with the less pleasant realities of the industry that impact car design.
Also see ‘Auto history: A bastion of older white male privilege?’
What’s wrong with acknowledging the homophobia of this film? Its producers were clearly so concerned about designers being viewed as effeminate and homosexual that they inserted that quote early on. They also repeatedly showed footage of designers doing “manly” things such as flying planes and holding hands with women. By contemporary standards the machismo was over-amped.
Am I being too hard on the film?
Yes, things were different a half century ago when the film was made. We shouldn’t expect the Ford Motor Company to have magically leapt ahead of changing social mores regarding gender, race, class and orientation. Nor should we be too hard on individuals in the film who acted in ways that today are considered politically incorrect but were once viewed as normal and acceptable (at least to those who weren’t on the receiving end).
That said, we “car guys” could learn a great deal from this film if we looked at it through a sociological lens. Would the U.S. automakers have been less likely to experience one of the most dramatic industrial collapses of the last century if design studios were more reflective of a diverse nation?
NOTES:
This is an updated version of a story originally posted July 22, 2013 and updated Aug. 7, 2020. The film under discussion did not display a title and release date. However, YouTube labeled it, The Design Makers — Inside Ford Design. My guess is that the film includes footage from 1968 but was completed in 1969 prior to 1970 model introductions.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Dan; 2013. Commentator in “A challenge that belongs to many men: Inside the Ford Design studios in the late 1960s.” Hemmings Daily. Posted June 10.
- Newman, Jenni; 2019. “It’s True! Women Really Do Shop More … for Cars.” Forbes. Posted May 30.
- Rogers, Anthony; 2013. Commentator in “A challenge that belongs to many men: Inside the Ford Design studios in the late 1960s.” Hemmings Daily. Posted June 10.
- —— ; 2013. Rogers Rare Art and Prints. No longer online. Accessed Sept. 2.
- Smith, Gary; 2013. “The Design Makers — Inside Ford Design.” Dean’s Garage. Posted June 27.
- Strohl, Daniel; 2013. “A challenge that belongs to many men: Inside the Ford Design studios in the late 1960s.” Hemmings Daily. Posted June 6.
- Wikipedia; 2013. “Tokenism.” Accessed July 20.
- Williams, Zig; 2013. Commentator in “A challenge that belongs to many men: Inside the Ford Design studios in the late 1960s.” Hemmings Daily. Posted June 8.
- Yeager, Robert C.; 2018. “Women Get Feet in the Door of the Car Design Boys’ Club.” The New York Times. Posted October 18.
A film like this couldn’t be made today without a public backlash. Yet none of the commentators on either post raised this point.
This is also true. Yet remember that this and similar sites are by gearheads and car buffs for gearheads and car buffs, and we are a dying breed. To a growing extent, people regard cars as appliances. The last stand of cars as a personal statement seems to be with the higher priced pickup trucks. We here are just behind the curve.
You may be right. At the same time, the role of the automobile is still central to how our society runs, so there are still plenty of reasons to talk about cars even if many view them as appliances.
This particular story is one of the first that I wrote when I began pulling together what would eventually become Indie Auto. My goal early on was to offer a more wide-ranging perspective on auto history than typically seen in the buff media. Over the years what I have found is that these types of stories tend to generate far fewer readers and comments than the more traditional stories on specific cars.
So should I not bother posting these stories? That would make sense if this were a “commercial” website. Controversial issues can get in the way of making that cash register ring! At some point I may shift my attention to venues other than Indie Auto, where there is a greater interest in the types of writing I want to do. But for now I am posting these kinds of stories here because I think they are important.
The continuing saga of the growth, development and evolution of the automobile industry, and its impact on society and culture are always important, however painful and controversial. Please continue to post these thoughtful questions and essays.