A celebration of the yardstick

I originally wrote this paper as the final assignment for an anthropology course at The New School for Social Research. Since I originally turned it in on December 20, 2021, I am sure that many more reviews have been published that demonstrate additional interpretive uses of the yardstick. If you’re interested in learning more, I would recommend conducting your own research!

Acknowledgements: Mundane Objects

The constructed world is full of designed objects. Of these there are more obviously designed objects like Apple computers, Eames lounge chairs, and OXO Good Grips® kitchen utensils (all of which maintain reputations for being designed because they maintain reputations for being well designed) and there are less obviously designed objects like paper clips, key rings, and traffic cones. Paper clips, key rings, and traffic cones may be just as designed (that is, well designed) as Apple computers, Eames chairs, and OXO utensils, but it is because of their ubiquity, lack of trademark status, and lack of marketing to support them that these more mundane objects tend to fall outside the purview of what is considered “designed,” usually disqualifying them from further consideration — from being considered “well designed.”

Despite their ability to meet all their identifiable needs (keeping papers from blowing away, keys from getting lost, and traffic directed without putting people in harm’s way), which is usually the criterion for qualifying items as “well designed,” these well known but not-so-well regarded objects and countless others like them exist in the constructed world without their fair share of recognition. This is odd because not only are these objects so widely used, one could argue that our collective dependence on them rivals our dependence on their “designed” counterparts.

Perhaps our lack of recognition for these objects comes from the fact that they have no single origin; no one person to take on the title of designer and therefore no one person to thank. They are items that have come into being as a result of years and years of people working through similar problems yielding similar solutions but emerging from multiple sources at different times and at different stages of refinement. An example of this nonlinear creative chaos can be seen in the development of the paper clip, which despite its recognizable form today was at one point an incredibly varied object, taking on different shapes, sizes, and techniques for binding paper. Several of these clips were patented at different times and on different continents. Some of the inventors of these clips were aware that others were pursuing solutions similar to theirs while others made no indication of intellectual overlap.

So let’s hear it for these so-called mundane objects which make our lives great despite the lack of recognition. Let’s hear it for the unsung paper clip, key ring, traffic cone, bar of soap, cup holder, tissue box, chapstick tube, pair of scissors, ruler, and yardstick.

As this example shows, there can be no single origin or author for objects like the paper clip because the challenge of keeping papers organized is not exclusive to any single location or party. The same goes for the key ring. If the mundane object does owe its creation to a single person, as is the case with the modern-day traffic cone (attributed to Charles D Scanlon), then its mundane-ness is due to the fact that the object has seen no significant change in some time. Or, perhaps traffic cones have undergone changes, we just haven’t been able to notice because of the context in which they are usually presented to us: speeding away as we drive past them in our cars with the windows rolled up.

Authored or not, still perfecting their forms or not, the widespread lack of appreciation for these objects is unacceptable. Many of us owe our lives to the existence of these objects which allow us to navigate the constructed world organized, sorted, and unscathed. In comparison, to the existence of the MacBook I merely owe the ability to send emails and write this paper (which is no small ability but it at least it should be put into perspective!). It is because these objects have been overlooked for so long that space should be made to acknowledge their achievements and contributions to the constructed world. Time should be taken to celebrate the existence of these objects and all they have allowed humanity to accomplish. So let’s hear it for these so-called mundane objects which make our lives great despite the lack of recognition. Let’s hear it for the unsung paper clip, key ring, traffic cone, bar of soap, cup holder, tissue box, chapstick tube, pair of scissors, ruler, and yardstick. This paper would not be possible without them — or at least not without one of them.

Defining the Yardstick

Taking my cue from the position that certain useful objects remain unacknowledged (as mentioned above) as well as inspiration from Joseph Dumit’s implosion project and Henry Petroski’s reflection on ad-hoc chalkboard pointers in relation to the laser pointer, the mundane object that I hope to celebrate in this paper is the yardstick. But before we can celebrate it we must first define it: by “yardstick” I mean any item resembling a yardstick; any item that serves the same functions of the yardstick (allowing for the ability to measure and draw straight lines up to approximately three feet) even if its units of measurement do not necessarily reflect the same units of measurement found on the yardstick.

This is to say that metersticks should count as yardsticks, too, at least for the purposes of this paper, as metersticks serve basically the same functions as yardsticks and have virtually the same physical dimensions. If yardsticks are typically made to reflect their measurement of three feet, then it should also be mentioned that I am including four-foot-long rulers in my consideration of yardsticks, too, as the real world uses of these slightly longer sticks (I’ve discovered through my research) closely resemble those of typical three-foot-long yardsticks. While it is still necessary to distinguish between proper three-foot-long yardsticks and four-foot-long rulers, as you will see from the coming discussion, the ways in which people use these two objects is strikingly similar, suggesting the difference between three feet and four feet is negligible, at least as far as personal tools are concerned.

When met with a challenge, people are clever enough to repurpose all kinds of objects to help them meet their needs.

As part of the functional requirement that yardsticks should allow for the drawing of straight lines, it should be further mentioned that the yardsticks I am referring to are rigid objects made of single pieces of wood, metal, or other similar materials. This is to say that measuring tapes and foldable yardsticks which can be condensed in size should not be considered for this paper, as the way one wields these yardsticks is significantly different from how one wields a rigid, single-piece yardstick. The term “yardstick” that we should therefore move forward with for use in this paper should encompass everything that the silhouette of a yardstick embodies: a rigid, straight-cut stick of about one yard (or one meter) that allows for straight-line drawing and some kind of measuring, no matter which printed measurements are actually depicted.

The reason for these qualifications has to do with the specific way I intend to celebrate the yardstick. It is not for its ubiquitous design but instead for the ways in which the yardstick and objects like it take on new meanings as they circulate in the real world. It is for this reason that details like whether or not the object depicts inches or centimeters are unimportant. Instead, what is important for this discussion is the ways in which people actually use their yardsticks. As my research has revealed (and you will see), the form of the rigid, straight-cut yardstick is fluid enough (more on that later) to yield myriad interpretations and uses. While a lot of these uses are still inspired by the original measuring and straight-line drawing functions of the yardstick, many are not. This is reason to celebrate not only the form of the yardstick but also the ingenuity of humanity: when met with a challenge, people are clever enough to repurpose all kinds of objects to help them meet their needs.

Responsibility for the Yardstick

Humanity’s ability to improvise on the functional capacity of the yardstick begs the question of whether or not the designer responsible for the yardstick (entertaining for a moment that there could actually be a single designer responsible for creating the modern-day yardstick) is also responsible for the improvisational uses the yardstick inspires. Is it fair that the designer of a tool should take responsibility for the ways that tool is used that may not have been intended? Should the designer anticipate the unintended uses of a tool so that they can build in failsafes to lessen the potential of an unintended and dangerous use of that tool? Is it ethical for the designer to pick and choose, claiming unintended yet safe uses of a tool and shirking responsibility for its harmful uses?

If not the yardstick (which may have no single creator), then what about the traffic cone? In 2019, the company TrafFix Devices Inc. applied for a patent on a specific mounting device that would allow for a traffic sign with no handle to be attached to the top of a standard traffic cone. A way to revamp the improvised method of wedging a sign into a vertically-cut slit in the top of the cone, this invention undoubtedly capitalizes on the traffic cone’s unintended yet functional use as a mounting base for signs. Taking a step back, we should acknowledge this feat: the traffic cone as a mounting base for signs is a cause for celebration! And in our celebration we should acknowledge not only the form of the traffic cone, which would not be with us without the original inventor Charles D. Scanlon, but also humanity’s ability to find such a clever solution. Well done, everyone!

This celebration should continue up until the soft plastic of the cone, weakened by the cut, gives way to the weight of the traffic sign, releasing and depositing it on the ground where drivers are no longer able to see it. When this happens (when the vertically-cut slit is no longer sufficient and further design intervention in the form of a specific mounting device is required) then this unintended use becomes harmful and is no longer worthy of celebration. But can it be claimed? Should this use of the traffic cone have been anticipated in the original design process? Is Charles D. Scanlon responsible for this turn of events, or does this improvisation on the traffic cone extend beyond his authority?

Elaine Scarry takes on the question of object and creator responsibility in her book The Body in Pain, shedding light on an answer that at least considers the legal ramifications of object creation. In it, she uses the example of gas-powered stoves in residential homes and a court case centering on a gas leak that led to an explosion and multiple injuries to conclude that creators must at least feel legally obligated to give their objects failsafes. “An object must be self-aware: its design must not only anticipate how it will be used (and even, how it might be oddly used) but how it will be installed and eventually removed” (Scarry 1987, 303). Giving objects self-awareness (embedding odors within natural gasses so that people can smell if there’s a gas leak and posting warnings like “do not step on this step” on unsafe parts of stepladders, as Scarry describes) allows not only for more widespread safe usage but also more protection for creators against exploitative litigation, in which plaintiffs sue for the sole purpose of working the legal system (303).

There are, therefore, significant benefits to creating and using objects that are self-aware, have built-in failsafes, minimize interpretation, and take responsibility for potentially harmful real world uses, but there are also advantages to considering designed objects as generative, their forms allowing for open-ended uses within their “horizons of possibility,” as Anne-Marie Willis illustrates in her essay “Ontological Designing — Laying the Ground.” While the main goal of this essay is to demonstrate the existence of a “hermeneutic circle” between design processes and the ways in which people use designed objects — “…interpretation — in which the ‘designed being’ of the user acts back upon the tool or the material being worked on, with the effect of modifying or improving the process” (Willis 2006, 83), — Willis does so by acknowledging the fact that everyday objects consistently invite moments of useful interpretation, “…such as when something breaks down and the user has to [intervene] in order to fix it” (83).

Depending on how you think about it, moments of intervention and interpretation could be cause for alarm for the uncertainty, danger, and possibility of litigation they invite…or they could be cause for celebration, acknowledging that human beings are remarkably clever…

The poet Ross Gay certainly knows about this type of intervention. In The Book of Delights he takes the concept of open-endedness one step further in advocating for the “innovative spirit” that comes with finding “jenky” solutions to problems. “…I am advocating for the delight one feels making a fire pit with the inside of a dryer, or keeping the dryer door shut with an exercise band, which is probably caused by endorphins released from a bout of cognitive athleticism. Which is also called figuring something out. Which is something we all go to school, some of us for years and years, to forget how to do” (Gay 2019, 183).

Depending on how you think about it, moments of intervention and interpretation could be cause for alarm for the uncertainty, danger, and possibility of litigation they invite, as Elaine Scarry illustrates, or they could be cause for celebration, acknowledging that human beings are remarkably clever and capable enough to do their own world-building no matter what the instructions on the back of the box say. Who says a yardstick can only be used for measuring?

Uses of the Yardstick as Indicated by Online Reviews

In order to demonstrate the potential of the yardstick as an item that can function beyond its standard capacity for measuring and drawing straight lines, one can use no other method than providing concrete examples for additional types of usage. There can be no stronger argument for the potential of the yardstick as an interpretive tool than actually listing out these uses, examining the purposes they serve, and registering the mood of the people performing them.

But how does one observe such things? Where can one look besides one’s own home or public spaces to see the unusual contexts in which the yardstick has been applied? Why, no other place than the internet, of course, whose social capabilities (not only social media but also social-capable features built into non-social websites like product review capabilities on retail sites) have allowed for the amplification of the personal-made-public and the multiplication of windows into everyday lives.

Taking inspiration from another concept of Elaine Scarry’s, the concept of the body in pain needing relief and finding it by leveraging a designed object — “…the now freestanding made object is a projection of the live body that itself reciprocates…” (Scarry 1987, 280), — I have assigned “purposes” to the interpretive uses of the yardstick I’ve discovered.

Meaning that, when appropriate, I have assigned their uses as “extensions of the arm” (such as when the yardstick is used as a chalkboard pointer), “used for material” (such as when a wooden yardstick is used as lumber for a project and is subsumed by other wooden materials), and/or “replacement technology” (such as, again, when the yardstick is used as a chalkboard pointer). In addition, I have also indicated when reviewers have expressed discontent with the measuring capabilities of their yardsticks. In an interesting turn of events, the yardstick’s measuring capabilities (the main reason we know it to be called a yardstick!) fails its users, calling into question whether or not the assumed-to-be normative use of the yardstick as a measuring device is even a valid use for it anymore.

The data collected for this paper were acquired by reading through hundreds of online product reviews in order to get a sense for the variety of ways people use their yardsticks. These reviews were sourced from product pages where yardsticks and objects like it could be purchased and picked up in-store or delivered by mail. The umbrella websites containing these product pages included amazon.com, lowes.com, michaels.com, and walmart.com. These pages included listings for proper three-foot-long yardsticks and the similar four-foot-long ruler as well as a six-foot-long ruler, 8.33-foot-long straight edge, and two-foot-long ruler designed to assist with hanging pictures.

Things got more interesting, however, when reviews strayed from the standard capacity for measuring and drawing straight lines.

To ease into the different uses of the yardstick, let’s start with a softball. “The good ole yardstick comes in handy and worth having around the house. Very inexpensive and accurate. It’s good to have on hand when laying out projects for measurements and you need two hands free. I have drilled a hole in it and used it to make circles.” In this review we can see the typical use of the yardstick shining through with an interpretive twist: a circular stencil added to increase functionality. While this reviewer did not indicate their reason for adding such a stencil, we can conclude that the type of drawing this stencil enables is different from the straight-line drawing that the edge of the yardstick enables. Purposes of use: measuring; replacement technology for a circular stencil.

Oftentimes reviewers indicated their intention of measuring without specifying what it was they intended to measure, as with the review above. Other times reviewers would specify their intentions, such as when the yardstick was used to measure snowfall — “Easy to store in the off-season — keep it near the door in winter so you can measure all the snow!” — or rainfall — “I use them with a water level…” — or as a straight edge to hang pictures and shelves on the wall: “a great meesuring stick and straight edge for hanging pictures” and “Great product love the length been a life saver hanging things around the house” (taken from a review for a four-foot ruler). The other main use of the yardstick was its capacity to help people draw straight lines. These types of reviews were also abundant: “This [yardstick] is much thicker, sturdier and totally straight and the edges are sharp which is great for craft projects where I might need to draw long guidelines to follow,” and so on.

Things got more interesting, however, when reviews strayed from the standard capacity for measuring and drawing straight lines. The interpretive uses of the yardstick and the four-foot-long ruler will now be listed and discussed roughly in the order they were encountered.

The yardstick as an object used to retrieve items from under furniture (extension of the arm):

• “This yardstick to very nice and can be multipurpose. I use mine not only for measuring but for other things. Like reaching and filling out a sock from underneath my bed”
• “This one really is thick and sturdy, which is good because I use it as a 3' pole as much as a yardstick. Great for getting kids toys from underneath the couch. :)”
• “what a nifty way to get out objects that have rolled under cabinets. of course great for measuring. great price”
• “What did I need? A ruler. Now I am an adult because I have a yardstick to get cat, dog, and baby toys out from under the couch…”
• “This yardstick is perfect. I use it for fabric, wood, hanging pictures, and reaching under my washer”
• “Imagine my surprise…it’s a good wooden stick and it’s a yard long. Has markings in 1/8th inch increments for measuring things, up to a yard of course. Discovered this is useful for recovering cat toys from under furniture and appliances but you could use a stick without measurements too. Good for poking at things too”

This last review stands out not only for its insight into interpretive uses but also for its ability to speak to a problem inherent to this particular research technique, which is the problem of gleaning information second-handedly. “Good for poking at things too” suggests that the reviewer may have taken a frivolous approach to their review. Have they actually used the yardstick to poke things or were they just joking? This calls into question the authenticity of not only this one review but all reviews sourced for this project as each of their contributors could very possibly have been lying or trolling.

While the possibility of trolling is certainly good information to consider, it should not be a reason to totally abandon this project. Even if all reviewers were lying about using yardsticks to retrieve items from under furniture, we should take comfort from the fact that the yardstick still could be used to retrieve items from under furniture. It is for this reason that we can proceed with this discussion with reassurance, taking the insights from these reviews as valid options to consider for the yardstick’s horizons of possibility. Congratulations, yardstick!

The yardstick as raw material for shims, furniture trim, wooden instruments, and other craft projects (used for material):

• “I don’t use them just for there intended use sometimes I cut them and use them in projects”
• “you get 36 inches and its printed on wood, wow , you can cut it for shims and stick them in your windows…”
• “It’s a yardstick. But it can be used for many another purpose, like using some of it as a shim”
• “Bought five of these wooden yard sticks from Lowes to be used as trim boards on my home-made workbench…However, after using two different tape measures on all five sticks, I noticed that some of the markings are not as accurate as I would like them to be” (indicating that the yardstick’s measuring capabilities aren’t as strong as they used to be)
• “I used them as trim molding for the edge of my shelves in my craft room”
• “…I used the yardsticks to make a solid edge to the MDS board I used for the top of my workbench”
• “I use the yardsticks to make musical instruments. I glue them up edge to edge then plane off the writing. That makes me a nice thin board that I can cut out to make the body of the Appalachian Mountain Dulcimer. I plane down individual yardsticks and soften them in hot water and bend them to make the sides of the instrument”
• “Love these old fashioned yard sticks. Their especially sturdy used to make wine cork wall posting strips!”
• “Barrier for a TV stand” (taken from a review for a four-foot ruler)
• “My daughters teacher asked for a yard stick to make ponies out of super fast delivery and turned out adorable”
• “Worked well to affix magnetic boundary markers to for a robotic vacuum cleaner. The edges of the 10 I picked up are a major splinters hazard though. So take that into consideration before deciding on them for your project”
• “I got two of these yard sticks to use as a sturdier base for the pleated Redi-Arch window shade in our dining room and they work great! There are adhesive strips along the ends of the Redi-Arch that I attached to the yard sticks which helps the arched shade be more stable in the window…”

The yardstick as a stir stick (extension of the arm / replacement technology):

• “Bought five of these wooden yard sticks from Lowes to be used as trim boards on my home-made workbench…Not to mention…they make great paint stirs…”
• “…it can be a paint can mixer . you can even hit your buddies with it buy 2 there cheap” (again calling into question the authenticity of these reviews with the mention of hitting one’s buddies)
• “As a straight edge or cut down to paint stirrers, this is a good item. DON’T use it for measuring anything if accuracy matters, as it comes up short. At least 1/16” short in 18 inches and 1/8" short the entire length, according to the markings” (again calling into question the yardstick’s measuring capabilities)

The yardstick as a golf putting aid (replacement technology):

• “We use it as a golf putting aid. See if you can putt it’s whole length without the ball falling off. My grandson can now do 25 straight, but it isn’t easy”
• “May sound funny but this is the perfect putting tool. Place the golf ball on the ruler and putt it down the middle. Works on putting stroke and head alignment” (taken from a review for a four-foot ruler)
• “Use it as a putting aid in addition to straight edge/measuring! Make short putts after practicing putts down center!” (taken from a review for a four-foot ruler)

The yardstick by itself as a toy (replacement technology):

• “These sticks are amazing for our underground hockey rink in pre-cal, When I get whacked in the face by a lowe’s brand yardstick, it hurts so good!”
• “will not break if I bang it into something or if my 7 year old uses it as a sword”

The yardstick as a picket sign or “totem” handle (extension of the arm / used for material):

• “If i was needing a precise measurement I would not use these. I also use these as parts for crafting and sign making”
• “bought this for my totem for a music festival and worked very well!”

The yardstick as a quilting tool (replacement technology):

• “Probably not a typical use but I an using this so I press quilt strips straight” (taken from a review for a four-foot ruler)

The yardstick as an object used to enable social distancing (extension of the arm):

• “Use for automatic Social Distancing for small children (works for most sane adults also!) — Just hold it in your hand and the little ones will keep their distance from you while you contemplate the end of the world in peaceful bliss”
• “Very good quality for the price — clear print and very sturdy. Two added together make the perfect social distancing stick!”

The yardstick as an object used to stake tomatoes (replacement technology):

• “These were exceptionally sturdy and attractive. I used them to stake tomatoes!”

The yardstick as an object used to load potatoes into a potato launcher (extension of the arm / replacement technology):

• “Good finish perfect packing for potatoe launcher, lolol”

And the yardstick as an object used to clean between the glass in oven doors, a use not only validated by the following quote but made formal in a product video published by GE Appliances (extension of the arm / replacement technology):

• “I ordered this yard stick to clean between the glass on my oven door. I had seen this thing on the internet where you take a sponge or wet wash cloths and tape them to a long stick or something, and run them up from the bottom of the door and wash it good, and then do the same thing while rinsing it. It worked great”

Well done, yardstick!

The Fluidity of the Yardstick

Veering away from the yardstick and four-foot-long ruler for the sake of studying other similar objects, we begin to see far fewer interpretive uses. The six-foot-long ruler, 8.33-foot-long straight edge, and two-foot-long ruler designed to assist with hanging pictures all yielded much less varied reviews on their product pages. Instead, these reviews only indicated uses conforming to the main purposes for which these objects were designed: measuring and cutting raw materials, and hanging picture frames.

If you were to ask Marianne de Laet and Annemarie Mol, they may tell you that this is because these objects are firm: their boundaries are clear and fixed instead of vague and moving like that of the Zimbabwe Bush Pump. Like the Bush Pump, the yardstick also has flexible boundaries and uses, suggesting that it is similar to the Bush Pump as a “fluid” technology. “…an object that isn’t too rigorously bounded, that doesn’t impose itself but tries to serve, that is adaptable, flexible and responsive — in short, a fluid object — may well prove to be stronger than one which is firm” (de Laet and Mol 2000, 226).

All things considered, I’d say this is something to celebrate! Despite its rigid materiality, the straight-cut, single-piece yardstick has proven to be flexible enough to enable all kinds of uses beyond its original purpose and context, none of which (as of yet) have been shown to be all that harmful. Its non-imposing form, ubiquitous availability, and relative affordability — only $1.98 at Lowe’s! — makes it the perfect tool for myriad everyday applications. Pick yours up today!

References

Dumit, Joseph. 2014. “Writing the Implosion: Teaching the World One Thing at a Time.” Cultural Anthropology 29 (2): 344–62. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca29.2.09.

Gay, Ross. 2019. The Book of Delights. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

Laet, Marianne de, and Annemarie Mol. 2000. “The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology.” Social Studies of Science 30 (2): 225–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030002002.

Petroski, Henry. 2018. “Success and Failure in Design.” In Success through Failure, NED-New edition, 44–80. The Paradox of Design. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1wx93qn.7.

Scanlon, Charles D. 1943. Safety marker. United States US2333273A, filed February 17, 1941, and issued November 2, 1943. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2333273/en.

Scarry, Elaine. 1987. “The Interior Structure of the Artifact.” In The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World, 1st pbk. ed., 278–307. New York: Oxford University Press.

“‘Traffic Sign Mountable On A Traffic Cone’ in Patent Application Approval Process (USPTO 20190119869).” 2019. Politics & Government Week, May. link.gale.com/apps/doc/A585204678/AONE?u=nysl_me_newsch&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=4b326de1.

Willis, Anne-Marie. 2006. “Ontological Designing — Laying the Ground.” Design Philosophy Papers, January, 80–98.