Thread: The Anarchist's Tool Chest

Originally Posted by jmk89

I think that the explanation for Schwarz's use of ["anarchist'] may lie in the somewhat different socio-economic states of the USA and Australia. My impression is that the USA adopted and, to some extent, worshipped industrialisation and the mass production model in ways that the smaller Australian economy was never able to achieve. Similarly it adopted the consumer society to a greater extent, which in turn supported both mass production and industrialisation by acquiring more and more of the products that resulted from them.

On the production side, one consequence may have been that the concept of individual craftsmanship and the possibility for that to continue and flourish perhaps remained greater in Australia than in the USA. Accordingly, Schwarz's reaction to both the products of mass production (tool-like objects) and the removal of craftsmanship from the production of furniture that has been the result of mass production and industrial economy is more violent because those concepts were more fully adopted in the United States. Perhaps also to reject the mass production industrialised model in the United States is a form of anarchy, whereas in Australia it is simply the adoption of a respectable approach which never entirely was lost from the mainstream in our smaller and more remote economy and society.

Similarly on the consumption side, it is probably the case that the concept of quality tools and quality crafted furniture available in each case to ordinary consumers lived longer and more strongly in our South Pacific backwater than in the USA. So be appreciation by at least a significant portion of the consumers in Australia continued to appreciate those products so that they never ceased to be part of the mainstream (even if their proportion of it declined). Like the rejection of the mass production industrialised model of producing tools and furniture, Schwarz's rejection of the consumerist consumption of both tool like objects and flatpack furniture seems an overreaction to Australian eyes.

or it might be the absence of the master--apprentice learning model

From it's earliest days, the US tended to import needed mechanical/manual skills or adopted a make-it-up-as-you-go-along method of learning.
If you read the bios of American wood workers (published in places like FWW, Popular Woodworking, Woodworking, etc) there's a consistent theme of no formal training, no mentor at the beginning just learning by doing.

the absense of a tradition of trade training (and even trade training schools) -- trade training being replaced by learning-by-doing -- encourages a mindset that values any new tool on the basis of does it "make the job easier for an unskilled person" which in turn leads to a marketeer's parradise where almost anything "new" can be sold on the promise that it is "easier" to use
There are some wonderful examples out there of really stupid "tools" which 50-60 years later are only found in an unused (in many cases unsold) condition


Now on our side of the Pacific, the British master--apprentice system continues to this day -- and if anything it's formalisation through the various "trade competancy" schemes makes the Australian system stronger than its British forebere -- for example, in NSW you need a "ticket" to install someone else's kitchen cabinets (and let's not even talk about the differences in electrical wiring "rules")

The trade training tradition in Australia leads to an inherently different approach to articles and goods manufactured by the "skilled trades" of which wood working is but one

Jeremy
up front I should have said

Thanks for the review !!

Originally Posted by jmk89

At one level, it may just be a question of tone. Too many there is too much of the "reformed alcoholic" about Schwarz's description of his realisation that he had a problem when it came to tool acquisition. Like the person who has come late to a religious revelation or like the reformed smoker, Schwarz's epiphany in relation to the tools that he actually needs and wants to use is all a bit excessive. It makes me feel uncomfortable.

Jeremy

"There is none so righteous as the converted."

Good review. Thanks.

Regards
Paul

Part 2 of my review.

One aspect of Schwarz's writings (especially those on workbenches) that I have enjoyed is that he has looked at what is needed in order for the relevant tool to perform the relevant operation. In doing that he has tended to start with the operation or task and work back to the tool. So he has asked in relation to a workbench a series of questions designed to determine whether the bench has the features you need depending on the jobs you want to do - typically he looks at the task of making kitchen cabinets and asks how the bench will be used to hold the material while you perform each step of the task, doing that task in the way you want to do it. That starting point has been invaluable to me in clarifying what features were necessary (and which were only desirable or even unwanted) for the bench I have been making.

A similar approach to the issue of tool selection is possible and I had hoped that it would be used in The Anarchist's Toolchest - sometimes it comes through, but it isn't the method that Schwarz uses to explain what tools he has decided he needs. I would have probably found the book more persuasive if, instead of dividing his discussion of tools into categories of tools (saws, planes, chisels etc), he had started with looking at the tools for marking and measuring, then those for rough dimensioning, those for making panels, those for each of the joints he wants to make (M&T of various kinds, DTs of various kinds, mitres, housings and halvings, etc), those for assembly (eg grooves for panels as well as clamps) and for decorating the wood (moulding and carving) and finally those for smoothing and preparing for finish. Each operation would then have a tool list based on what tools are desirable for each operation and the tool list would be the combination (taking out any duplicates).

I feel that this anatomy of the contents of the tool chest may also have helped make Schwarz's philosophical points more credible. If the mark of the craftsman is personal and emotional involvement in the task, then deciding on your equipment based on what your tasks are, and how you propose to perform them, makes more sense. Indeed, that is often my advice to others wanting to know what tools to obtain - what jobs are you going to do and what operations will you use to perform those jobs. Answer those questions and you then find out exactly which tools you need. If you move on to new jobs, then you will need to ask whether you need some more tools (and whether some of your tools will now be unnecessary and can be retired).

Using that process, therefore, would have put joinery saws and planes together and would have had bench planes divided between rough dimensioning, squaring for joinery and finishing (which is how you use them).

I suspect that this process of reasoning lies behind many of the decisions Schwarz has actually made and the views that he expresses in his book result from such reasoning. It would have been more interesting to me and probably more persuasive as well, had this process been expressed in the book itself. It would also have made two other points clearer. First, your optimum tool chest is a reflection of the job you are working on - it does not appear engraved on stone like another tablet of commandments. Second, your tool kit will change with your jobs, and your chest needs to accommodate those changes.

So perhaps I have found Schwarz's next book - what the tool chest will hold if the tool choices are made this way by reference to the tasks that he performs over the next couple of years. If that is what he writes next, it will be very interesting, both to see the choices he makes (and whether they differ from the choices he has set out so far) and whether it alters his views on the craftsman/anarchist philosophical question

Jeremy

As usual, a well balanced and insightful review.

Gary

thanks, Gary.

For those interested, Gary has a two piece review on his blog:Toolemera Blog: The Anarchist's Tool Chest - Review, Part 1: A Theory Of Social Order In The Context Of Personal Versus Monopolistic Enlightenment

Hi Jeremy,

Thanks for a great review, I've been getting snippets and quotations out of context for the last 24 hours from my son who hasn't put it down since it arrived yesterday, so I'm now looking forward to reading it for myself.

In general I like his writing style, a little self deprecating and slightly off center humor appeals to me, not that that means I agree with everything he has to say, but I don't think that's the point. If it (the book) promotes intelligent discussion then it can only be a good thing.

Roy Underhill (aka St. Roy) got the dedication... nice.

Regards
Ray

Originally Posted by jmk89

Part 2 of my review.

...

So perhaps I have found Schwarz's next book - what the tool chest will hold if the tool choices are made this way by reference to the tasks that he performs over the next couple of . If that is what he writes next, it will be very interesting, both to see the choices he makes (and whether they differ from the choices he has set out so far) and whether it alters his views on the craftsman/anarchist philosophical question

Or perhaps you should write that book?

Thanks for the review. The discussion alone helps to clarify how we should approach choosing new tools. I'm certainly only buying tools as I find a need for them on a project, and in fact I'm selling off some which I bought and have never really found a need for.

I think that what it comes down to is: there is no perfect, basic, minimalistic or overdone set of hand tools. To even suggest there is flies in the face of anarchy as anarchy would suppose no rules of the day.

In a peculiar fashion, suggesting there is a perfect set of hand tools is the opposite of social anarchy in that to suggest such will support the business of making tools for a living. In the end, it was an interesting conversation starter on the topic of is there or is there not a definable set of tools, what they're named and how they're used.

If anything, the true social anarchist buys or makes only what is needed for the project at hand rather than falling prey to the marketing voice of the manufacturer. Which is to say, I at last have a use for that undergraduate degree in social psychology I picked up back in the '70's.