This paper is about disposability as a technological concern and about how to trace the related issues through the analysis of patents. It examines how moral and social concerns happened to be embedded (or not) in technology, based on the case of disposable feminine hygiene products. The focus is placed on what “disposable” means and on exploring relative notions as well as their dynamic and consequences. To conduct such analysis, the paper proposes to perform a classic and computer-assisted analysis of the patents published by Johnson & Johnson over almost a century (1925–2012). Tracing social and moral concerns in patents challenges the existing literature in law, which tends to envision patents as legal assets deprived of moral considerations. The paper shows how hygiene products addressed women, how these products were made disposable, and how what disposability means evolved, both in the heart of technology and in the wider space of “concerned” markets.
AkrichM.1992. “The De-scription of Technical Objects.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by BijkerW. E.LawJ., 205–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AkrichM.CallonM.LatourB.. 2002. “The Key to Success in Innovation Part I: The Art of Interessement.” International Journal of Innovation Management6 (2): 187–206.
3.
ArmstrongL.ScottA.. 1992. Whitewash: Exposing the Health and Environmental Dangers of Women’s Sanitary Products and Disposable Diapers: What You Can Do About It. Toronto, Canada: Harper Perennial.
4.
BarthesR.1978. Leçon. Paris: Seuil.
5.
CallonM.1986. “Pinpointing Industrial Invention: An Exploration of Quantitative Methods for the Analysis of Patents.” In Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, edited by CallonM.LawJ.RipA., 163–88. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
CallonM.Forthcoming. Markets in the Making. Why We Need to Change the Way We Think about Competition, Goods, and Innovation. New York: Zone Books.
7.
CallonM.CourtialJ.-P.LavilleF.. 1991. “Co-word Analysis as a Tool for Describing the Network of Interactions Between Basic and Technological Research: The Case of Polymer Chemistry.” Scientometrics22:155–205.
8.
ChavalariasD.CointetJ.-Ph.. 2013. “Phylomemetic Patterns in Science Evolution: The Rise and Fall of Scientific Fields.” PLoS One8:2.
9.
CochoyF.2000. “De l’’AFNOR’ à ‘NF’, ou la progressive marchandisation de la normalisation industrielle.” Réseaux18 (102): 63–89.
10.
CochoyF.HagbergJ.KjellbergH.. 2019. “Price Tag Technologies and Price Ceiling Policies. Governing Prices in the WWII and Postwar US Economy (1940-1953).” Socio-Economic Review50 (1): 3–29.
11.
DelaneyJLuptonM. J.TothE.. (1976)1988. The Curse: A Cultural History of Menstruation. New York: E.P. Dutton.
12.
EnersonBenjamin D.2004. “Protecting Society from Patently Offensive Inventions: The Risk of Reviving the Moral Utility Doctrine.” Cornell Law Review89 (3): 685–720.
13.
FoxR. C.1959. Physicians and Patients Facing the Unknown. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
14.
HarrisonD.GeigerS.KjellbergH.MallardA., Eds. 2014. Concerned Markets. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
HawkinsG. 2021. “Detaching From Plastic Packaging: Reconfiguring Material Responsabilities.” Consumption, Markets and Culture24 (4): 405–418.
17.
HeidenS.2010. “The TXM Platform: Building Open-source Textual Analysis Software Compatible with the TEI Encoding Scheme.” In 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, edited by OtoguroR.IshikawaK.UmemotoH.YoshimotoK.HaradaY., 389–98. Sendai, Japan: Institute for Digital Enhancement of Cognitive Development, Waseda University.
18.
KaiteB.1987. “The Body and Femininity in Feminine Hygiene Advertising.” In Culture and Communication-methodology, Behaviour, Artifacts, and Institutions, edited by ThomasSari, 159–67. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
19.
KiddL. K.1994. “Menstrual Technology in the United States, 1854 to 1921.” Iowa State University: Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 10617. Accessed February 1, 2021. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/10617.
20.
LatourB.1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
LatourB.2014. “On Some of the Affects of Capitalism.” Lecture given at the Royal Academy, Copenhagen, 26 February.
MyersG.1995. “The Writing and Rewriting of Two Patents.” Social Studies of Science25 (1): 57–105.
24.
PickeringA.2001. “Practice and Posthumanism. Social Theory and a History of Agency.” In The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, edited by SchatzkiTh.Knorr-CetinaK.Von SivignyE., 163–74. New York: Routledge.
SchapiraR.1997. “Biotechnology Patents in the United States.” In: Biotechnology, Patents and Morality, edited by SterckxS., 171–72. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
27.
Schwartz CowanR.1976. “The ‘Industrial Revolution’ in the Home: Household Technology and Social Change in the 20th Century.” Technology and Culture17 (1): 1–23.
28.
SwansonK. W.2011. “Getting a Grip on the Corset: Gender, Sexuality, and Patent Law.” Yale Journal of Law and Feminism23 (1-3): 57–115.
29.
VostralS. L.2008. Under Wraps. A History of Menstrual Hygiene Technology. Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books.
30.
WajcmanJ.2010. “Feminist Theories of Technology.” Cambridge Journal of Economics34 (2010): 143–52.
31.
WaldronJ. W.1982. “The History of Tassaway and the Market for Feminine Hygiene Products.” January 15, Autumn Stanley Papers, MS 659. Special Collections Department, Iowa State University Library.
