Why the Thimble?

Today, some thoughts not on politics, but about an iconic game.

The people have voted and the thimble is being retired from Monopoly.  I find this sad for a few reasons, some sentimental, some because of what the tossing of the thimble may say about society today.

Sentimentally, the thimble has been a part of monopoly since the 1930s.  It is reminiscent of its time, as are thimbles generally.  Those of us of a certain age can remember our mother’s (or grandmother’s) sewing box or her button box.  We can remember when she made at least some of our clothes and our costumes for school plays and dance recitals.  Sewing used to be a part of many people’s lives – that was when we made things – when we didn’t just expect someone to do it for us.  And, in the context of garments, people used to sew because it was a way to save money.  But now, when we can buy clothing much cheaper made by sweatshops overseas, there is not really a practical reason to sew.  So now, sewing is no longer a life skill, but a craft activity for some who are bored because they have nothing to do.  (I realize that there are still those who do indeed practice the life skill of sewing – they hem a skirt or sew on a button, or even make a child’s or their own apparel; but, these people seem to be far fewer than in the past when nearly every house held a sewing machine, a button box, a needle, a spool of thread, and, yes, a thimble).

So, what does that say about us.  Is it that we no longer value this skill?  Or are we content to have lost it?  Are we content to let others do the work that we once did?  The work that was once perhaps a chore has become a craft for the idle.  Is this the same – is the skill the same?  Is the satisfaction that one gets from completing a fun, but unnecessary project the same as that which one gets from completing a project that is a true necessity in one’s life?

Hasbro, the maker of Monopoly, says the thimble is no longer culturally relevant.  Perhaps not.  In addition to it no longer being a part of a basic life skill, it is no longer a common employment for many – the tailors and seamstresses of yesteryear.  But let’s note that the other playing pieces, the ones that were not voted out – a hat, a cat, a dog, a car, a ship – do not involve work.  The only remaining piece that involves direct labor is the wheelbarrow.  (This is not to say that a car or shoe, for example, do not require labor for their production, but, unlike the thimble, they do not represent the labor itself).  Today, for many, making something from beginning to end, creating a product ourselves, is not a part of our life.  Even in a garment factory, the seamstress will generally repeatedly sew one part of a garment as part of a sort of assembly line version of sewing; the seamstress may have the satisfaction of creating a fine seam, but will miss the fulfillment of having created an entire garment, seeing it move from raw fabric to something that one takes pride in wearing.  And, along with the loss of creating an entire product comes the loss of understanding of what that product involves in terms of work and raw materials as well as a respect for and understanding of those who do that or similar work.  That is, working gives both satisfaction to the worker as well as a respect for others who work.  So perhaps the real significance here is that we are becoming a culture of consumers rather than makers, expecting others to provide for us, to do the work that we once did with a personal pride.  And, the real question is, what sort of a culture is one in which we consume rather than make, in which we are takers rather than makers?