SOC 3116 - Analysis of the Social Construction of EV1 Demise
VerifiedAdded on 2023/06/04
|13
|2450
|224
Homework Assignment
AI Summary
This assignment provides a detailed analysis of the documentary 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' using the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) framework. It identifies relevant social groups (RSGs) involved, such as car companies, electric car drivers, oil companies, and the US government, and examines their varying interpretations of the EV1 and their technological frames. The analysis explores how interpretive flexibility and differing interests led to the demise of the EV1, despite its potential environmental benefits. The assignment also discusses the concept of closure and how it relates to the stabilization of technology, highlighting the temporary nature of technological outcomes. Ultimately, the assignment illustrates how social, economic, and political factors influenced the fate of the electric car. Desklib is a great platform for students to access similar solved assignments.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
FIRST NAME
COURSE TITLE & NO.
SUBMISSION DATE
COURSE TITLE & NO.
SUBMISSION DATE
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC
CAR?
CAR?
Solution 1
A group of people who have the same level of understanding and they are connected to a
particular entity is called a relevant group. As per the documentary, the relevant group is a
collection of people who have the same views for electric cars. Following eight relevant
groups have been discussed in the documentary (DocumentaryHeaven, n.d.).
1. Car companies: the car companies that produced the electrical vehicles particularly
General Motors (GM), constitute this category. Apart from General Motors there were
other companies as well such as Toyota, Nissan and Ford (Crothers, 2017).
2. Electric car drivers: these were the people who drove electric cars, particularly EV1.
They admired the ideas and concepts behind EV1. But, when EV1 was taken back
they were very hurt as well as furious about the decision and wanted it to run on the
roads again (History, 2018).
3. People who did not selected electric cars: there were many people who did not
appreciated electric cars because they had a lot of questions regarding the
performance and reliability on electric cars. Such as many thought that there is a
driving limitation presented by the electric cars which is not the case with the gasoline
cars. Some did not like the design and felt that the traditional gasoline cards should be
continued. While many of the people were not familiar with the concepts of electric
cars. They lacked in awareness. Hence, they did not approve it.
4. Oil companies: the oil companies did not like electric cars because electric cars would
bring their market down. They knew that electric cars were built on the clean and
pollution free technology which would be appreciated by the people because nobody
wanted to harm the environment intentionally. Moreover, electric cars ran on a never-
ending source of energy unlike oil which is limited.
A group of people who have the same level of understanding and they are connected to a
particular entity is called a relevant group. As per the documentary, the relevant group is a
collection of people who have the same views for electric cars. Following eight relevant
groups have been discussed in the documentary (DocumentaryHeaven, n.d.).
1. Car companies: the car companies that produced the electrical vehicles particularly
General Motors (GM), constitute this category. Apart from General Motors there were
other companies as well such as Toyota, Nissan and Ford (Crothers, 2017).
2. Electric car drivers: these were the people who drove electric cars, particularly EV1.
They admired the ideas and concepts behind EV1. But, when EV1 was taken back
they were very hurt as well as furious about the decision and wanted it to run on the
roads again (History, 2018).
3. People who did not selected electric cars: there were many people who did not
appreciated electric cars because they had a lot of questions regarding the
performance and reliability on electric cars. Such as many thought that there is a
driving limitation presented by the electric cars which is not the case with the gasoline
cars. Some did not like the design and felt that the traditional gasoline cards should be
continued. While many of the people were not familiar with the concepts of electric
cars. They lacked in awareness. Hence, they did not approve it.
4. Oil companies: the oil companies did not like electric cars because electric cars would
bring their market down. They knew that electric cars were built on the clean and
pollution free technology which would be appreciated by the people because nobody
wanted to harm the environment intentionally. Moreover, electric cars ran on a never-
ending source of energy unlike oil which is limited.
5. Battery companies: these companies did the power source for the electric cars that is
the batteries. They wanted to build better batteries that would last longer and weigh
less. Ovonics, a battery company, built a much better battery compared to the one
used in EV1, whose shares were later purchased by GM in order to prevent him from
advertising.
6. California Air Resources Board (CARB): this organisation wanted to improve the
environment by reducing the carbon dioxide emission. They saw electric cars as a
great alternative to the gasoline ones in order to decrease the air pollution and thus
improving the quality of air. For this they proposed Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate
(ZEVM) which stated that all the car companies had to build some of their cars which
would emit zero exhaust gases. However, it was not supported by Alan Lloyd, the
chairman of carb, when he became the chairman of Fuel Cell Partnership (Leon,
2015).
7. US government: it was in a partnership with the oil companies and therefore wanted
the Californian government to take back the ZEVM. It also proposed hydrogen fuel
cells and believe that it would be a better alternative.
8. Hydrogen Fuel Cells Supporters: there were people who believe that hydrogen fuses
would be a better option as compared to the gasoline and electric cars and therefore
wanted to invest in the projects containing hydrogen fuel cells.
the batteries. They wanted to build better batteries that would last longer and weigh
less. Ovonics, a battery company, built a much better battery compared to the one
used in EV1, whose shares were later purchased by GM in order to prevent him from
advertising.
6. California Air Resources Board (CARB): this organisation wanted to improve the
environment by reducing the carbon dioxide emission. They saw electric cars as a
great alternative to the gasoline ones in order to decrease the air pollution and thus
improving the quality of air. For this they proposed Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate
(ZEVM) which stated that all the car companies had to build some of their cars which
would emit zero exhaust gases. However, it was not supported by Alan Lloyd, the
chairman of carb, when he became the chairman of Fuel Cell Partnership (Leon,
2015).
7. US government: it was in a partnership with the oil companies and therefore wanted
the Californian government to take back the ZEVM. It also proposed hydrogen fuel
cells and believe that it would be a better alternative.
8. Hydrogen Fuel Cells Supporters: there were people who believe that hydrogen fuses
would be a better option as compared to the gasoline and electric cars and therefore
wanted to invest in the projects containing hydrogen fuel cells.
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Solution 2
It is not necessary that all the relevant groups of the same understanding of a particular
technology, it may differ. This is termed as interpretive flexibility. A shocking claim was
made by GM that EV1 was useless because they were unable to generate profit out of it. The
dealerships started losing their profit from servicing which they used to get from gasoline
vehicles. GM started highlighting the flaws of electric cars by pointing out its limitations so
that people start losing interest in them. This step was a major setback for electric cars in the
future (Staley, 2017).
The people who appreciated electric cars were very disappointed by the decision of GM
because they loved driving it because they believed that this technology could bring an end to
the pollution. However there were people disapproved electric cars and believed in the
traditional gasoline technology.
CARB wanted that the electric cars take over the gasoline ones because they contributed in
the improvement of air quality. However, as soon as Alan Lloyd became the chairman of fuel
cells, he started to disagree from the ZEVM because he along with the oil companies were
unable to generate profits (Clarke, n.d.).
US government also did not wanted to promote electric cars because if EV1 had replaced the
fuel running because, it would shut down the oil companies and thereby effecting the profit of
the government too. Hence, the US government took every step and measure to stop the
purchase of electric vehicles such as by imposing high taxes.
It is not necessary that all the relevant groups of the same understanding of a particular
technology, it may differ. This is termed as interpretive flexibility. A shocking claim was
made by GM that EV1 was useless because they were unable to generate profit out of it. The
dealerships started losing their profit from servicing which they used to get from gasoline
vehicles. GM started highlighting the flaws of electric cars by pointing out its limitations so
that people start losing interest in them. This step was a major setback for electric cars in the
future (Staley, 2017).
The people who appreciated electric cars were very disappointed by the decision of GM
because they loved driving it because they believed that this technology could bring an end to
the pollution. However there were people disapproved electric cars and believed in the
traditional gasoline technology.
CARB wanted that the electric cars take over the gasoline ones because they contributed in
the improvement of air quality. However, as soon as Alan Lloyd became the chairman of fuel
cells, he started to disagree from the ZEVM because he along with the oil companies were
unable to generate profits (Clarke, n.d.).
US government also did not wanted to promote electric cars because if EV1 had replaced the
fuel running because, it would shut down the oil companies and thereby effecting the profit of
the government too. Hence, the US government took every step and measure to stop the
purchase of electric vehicles such as by imposing high taxes.
Hydrogen fuel cell technology was introduced among the people in order to distract them
from electric vehicles and prevent them from buying it. The new technology enables a cars to
run both on hydrogen is electricity, it was hypothetical technology.
Ovonics developed batteries that would have made EV1 succeed because the new batteries
were far better than the previous ones. Moreover, they sold the limitations of long distance
driving. However, as mentioned above GM did not wanted to continue EV1 so it took every
possible step in order to stop Ovonics advertising because that would have developed the
interest back among the people.
from electric vehicles and prevent them from buying it. The new technology enables a cars to
run both on hydrogen is electricity, it was hypothetical technology.
Ovonics developed batteries that would have made EV1 succeed because the new batteries
were far better than the previous ones. Moreover, they sold the limitations of long distance
driving. However, as mentioned above GM did not wanted to continue EV1 so it took every
possible step in order to stop Ovonics advertising because that would have developed the
interest back among the people.
Solution 3
When the understanding of any entity is negotiated among the people belonging to any
relevant social group, it is called as a technological frame. It constitutes targets, issues, issue
solving methods, etc. It also defines the communication among a relevant group’s members.
It is not necessary that it applies only to the technical groups. GM did not wanted to promote
their new technology because they had started to lose their profits on maintenance. So, they
began to show the limitations of the EV1 in order to loosen the interest among the masses.
They also wanted to bring down the ZEVM and switch to the production of gasoline cars
only (Mallick, 2014).
The oil companies disapproved the electric cars because it was a direct threat to their
existence in the market. The more the people will demand electric cars, the lesser will be the
sales of gasoline cars. This would decrease their profits. Therefore, the prime step for them
was to stop EV1 from succeeding and bring back the gasoline cars in the race. They funded
many organisations such as ‘Californian Against Utility Company Abuse’ to suppress EV1
and promoted that the electric stations should not be installed. They did all possible attempt
to bring down ZEVM and were successful in doing so (Joseph, 2013).
The people who loved EV1 wanted to keep it but some people felt that the re-charging of the
batteries every 30 miles was a headache. Although new batteries that would run longer than
the previous ones were designed, yet due to lack of promotions, including less number of
power stations and on top of that GM’s ignorance towards EV1 led to decrease the interest
among the lovers as well.
When the understanding of any entity is negotiated among the people belonging to any
relevant social group, it is called as a technological frame. It constitutes targets, issues, issue
solving methods, etc. It also defines the communication among a relevant group’s members.
It is not necessary that it applies only to the technical groups. GM did not wanted to promote
their new technology because they had started to lose their profits on maintenance. So, they
began to show the limitations of the EV1 in order to loosen the interest among the masses.
They also wanted to bring down the ZEVM and switch to the production of gasoline cars
only (Mallick, 2014).
The oil companies disapproved the electric cars because it was a direct threat to their
existence in the market. The more the people will demand electric cars, the lesser will be the
sales of gasoline cars. This would decrease their profits. Therefore, the prime step for them
was to stop EV1 from succeeding and bring back the gasoline cars in the race. They funded
many organisations such as ‘Californian Against Utility Company Abuse’ to suppress EV1
and promoted that the electric stations should not be installed. They did all possible attempt
to bring down ZEVM and were successful in doing so (Joseph, 2013).
The people who loved EV1 wanted to keep it but some people felt that the re-charging of the
batteries every 30 miles was a headache. Although new batteries that would run longer than
the previous ones were designed, yet due to lack of promotions, including less number of
power stations and on top of that GM’s ignorance towards EV1 led to decrease the interest
among the lovers as well.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
CARB was very interested in promoting EV1 in the beginning but as soon as Alan Lloyd
became the chairman of Fuel Cells, it also started to take its eyes from EV1 because EV1 was
the main reason of preventing him from making profits at the cost of pollution (Woudhuysen,
2008).
Government: Same as CARB, the US government also viewed EV1 as a main hurdle between
them and profit. If the oil companies shut, their business would be greatly affected resulting
in the decrease of their profit. In order to bring EV1 down, they invested around 1.2 Dollars
on the research for Hydrogen Fuel cells that would power cars instead of electric. It was a
trap. Moreover, tax relaxation was granted on the purchase of Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs)
(Cuesta, 2017).
Battery companies: A Battery company Ovonics wanted to remove the limitations of the
earlier batteries that an electric car could not go far and needed repeated recharges. Its main
target was to provide a better solution to GM and hence increase their sales.
Hydrogen cells supporters: The people who liked the concept of hydrogen cells wanted it to
replace electric cars because they were not satisfied by EVs. They wanted to bring fuel
consumption back to the cars but knew that it could not happen instantaneously and therefore
brought a combined technology of fuel and electricity as ‘Fuel Cells’. Hydrogen cars were
not better than electric cars but in order to distract the peoples any other technology had to be
brought.
Car companies: GM was trying its best to drop off the idea of electric vehicles because it
posed a serious threat to its profit as the electric cars did not required maintainence and
became the chairman of Fuel Cells, it also started to take its eyes from EV1 because EV1 was
the main reason of preventing him from making profits at the cost of pollution (Woudhuysen,
2008).
Government: Same as CARB, the US government also viewed EV1 as a main hurdle between
them and profit. If the oil companies shut, their business would be greatly affected resulting
in the decrease of their profit. In order to bring EV1 down, they invested around 1.2 Dollars
on the research for Hydrogen Fuel cells that would power cars instead of electric. It was a
trap. Moreover, tax relaxation was granted on the purchase of Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs)
(Cuesta, 2017).
Battery companies: A Battery company Ovonics wanted to remove the limitations of the
earlier batteries that an electric car could not go far and needed repeated recharges. Its main
target was to provide a better solution to GM and hence increase their sales.
Hydrogen cells supporters: The people who liked the concept of hydrogen cells wanted it to
replace electric cars because they were not satisfied by EVs. They wanted to bring fuel
consumption back to the cars but knew that it could not happen instantaneously and therefore
brought a combined technology of fuel and electricity as ‘Fuel Cells’. Hydrogen cars were
not better than electric cars but in order to distract the peoples any other technology had to be
brought.
Car companies: GM was trying its best to drop off the idea of electric vehicles because it
posed a serious threat to its profit as the electric cars did not required maintainence and
servicing as regularly as the gasoline ones. For this they stopped using the improved batteries
and promoted EV1 as a limited entity with many flaws (Kim, 2018). The number of buyers
reduced significantly from 4000 to just 50 people. When GM was successful in doing it
started to say that EV1 has lost its market and it should be better to stop producing and
investing on it. After doing this too, GM filed a case against CARB so that it drops ZEVM
and promote gasoline cars to run on the roads again giving profit to GM again (Brown, 2016).
Consumers: They include the people who loved EV1 as well as who disliked it. One of the
major flaw with EV1 was that it did not provided a long drive experience because it had to
recharge power again and again. They had to go to their offices and thus desired an
experience in which a car runs continuously with very less stoppage at power stations.
and promoted EV1 as a limited entity with many flaws (Kim, 2018). The number of buyers
reduced significantly from 4000 to just 50 people. When GM was successful in doing it
started to say that EV1 has lost its market and it should be better to stop producing and
investing on it. After doing this too, GM filed a case against CARB so that it drops ZEVM
and promote gasoline cars to run on the roads again giving profit to GM again (Brown, 2016).
Consumers: They include the people who loved EV1 as well as who disliked it. One of the
major flaw with EV1 was that it did not provided a long drive experience because it had to
recharge power again and again. They had to go to their offices and thus desired an
experience in which a car runs continuously with very less stoppage at power stations.
Solution 4
The stabilization of the entity is termed as the closure. When the interpretative flexibility of
an entity is reducing, its closure is increasing. Closure can be categorized into two forms,
Rhetorical closure and Redefinition of the problem closure. The stabilization of the entity
along with the invisiblity of issues related to it is termed as Rhetorical closure. It does not
include the sorting out of the issue. Instead it includes making it disappear. Whereas
redefinition of the problem means framing of a problem to which the entity will act as a
solution. The documentary showed that some of the social relevant groups disliked EV1 and
wanted to remove them. They saw EV1 as a problem for themselves while many relevant
social groups liked the idea behind EV1 and wanted them to stay. Those who saw them as an
issue wanted to bring another technology of hydrogen fuel cells. Some of the relevant groups
saw it as a great alternative to electric cars, others did not. For some of the social groups it
was viewed as a solution. Many social relevant groups made involvement in the removal of
the EV1. This signifies that closure is temporary.
The stabilization of the entity is termed as the closure. When the interpretative flexibility of
an entity is reducing, its closure is increasing. Closure can be categorized into two forms,
Rhetorical closure and Redefinition of the problem closure. The stabilization of the entity
along with the invisiblity of issues related to it is termed as Rhetorical closure. It does not
include the sorting out of the issue. Instead it includes making it disappear. Whereas
redefinition of the problem means framing of a problem to which the entity will act as a
solution. The documentary showed that some of the social relevant groups disliked EV1 and
wanted to remove them. They saw EV1 as a problem for themselves while many relevant
social groups liked the idea behind EV1 and wanted them to stay. Those who saw them as an
issue wanted to bring another technology of hydrogen fuel cells. Some of the relevant groups
saw it as a great alternative to electric cars, others did not. For some of the social groups it
was viewed as a solution. Many social relevant groups made involvement in the removal of
the EV1. This signifies that closure is temporary.
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Solution 5 (Bonus)
Just a single technological determinist is required for changing a light bulb. However, all the
people would encircle the determinist and talk about the reasons that drove the determinist
and the relation between the choice of changing the light bulb and the technological entity.
Just a single technological determinist is required for changing a light bulb. However, all the
people would encircle the determinist and talk about the reasons that drove the determinist
and the relation between the choice of changing the light bulb and the technological entity.
References
Brown, A. (2016, March 17). Here's the story behind GM's revolutionary electric car from
the 90s that disappeared. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.in:
https://www.businessinsider.in/Heres-the-story-behind-GMs-revolutionary-electric-
car-from-the-90s-that-disappeared/articleshow/51434620.cms
Clarke, C. (n.d.). An Inconvenient Truth and Who Killed the Electric Car? Retrieved from
http://www.earthisland.org:
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/magazine/entry/an_inconvenient_truth_
and_who_killed_the_electric_car/
Crothers, B. (2017, June 11). How To Kill The Electric Car: Report. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2017/06/11/how-to-kill-the-electric-car-
report/#71d0ebd4274e
Cuesta, S. D. (2017, December 30). The GM EV1: The Electric Vehicle Godfather. Retrieved
from https://www.endurancewarranty.com:
https://www.endurancewarranty.com/learning-center/shoptalk/rewind/gm-ev1-
electric-vehicle-godfather/
DocumentaryHeaven. (n.d.). Who Killed the Electric Car? [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://documentaryheaven.com: https://documentaryheaven.com/who-killed-the-
electric-car/
History. (2018, August 21). “Who Killed the Electric Car?” debuts. Retrieved from
https://www.history.com: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/who-killed-
the-electric-car-debuts
Joseph, J. (2013, May 9). Dead-End Technologies: GM EV1. Retrieved from
https://carbuzz.com: https://carbuzz.com/news/dead-end-technologies-gm-ev1
Brown, A. (2016, March 17). Here's the story behind GM's revolutionary electric car from
the 90s that disappeared. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.in:
https://www.businessinsider.in/Heres-the-story-behind-GMs-revolutionary-electric-
car-from-the-90s-that-disappeared/articleshow/51434620.cms
Clarke, C. (n.d.). An Inconvenient Truth and Who Killed the Electric Car? Retrieved from
http://www.earthisland.org:
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/magazine/entry/an_inconvenient_truth_
and_who_killed_the_electric_car/
Crothers, B. (2017, June 11). How To Kill The Electric Car: Report. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2017/06/11/how-to-kill-the-electric-car-
report/#71d0ebd4274e
Cuesta, S. D. (2017, December 30). The GM EV1: The Electric Vehicle Godfather. Retrieved
from https://www.endurancewarranty.com:
https://www.endurancewarranty.com/learning-center/shoptalk/rewind/gm-ev1-
electric-vehicle-godfather/
DocumentaryHeaven. (n.d.). Who Killed the Electric Car? [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://documentaryheaven.com: https://documentaryheaven.com/who-killed-the-
electric-car/
History. (2018, August 21). “Who Killed the Electric Car?” debuts. Retrieved from
https://www.history.com: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/who-killed-
the-electric-car-debuts
Joseph, J. (2013, May 9). Dead-End Technologies: GM EV1. Retrieved from
https://carbuzz.com: https://carbuzz.com/news/dead-end-technologies-gm-ev1
Kim, J. (2018, October 3). The EV1 and the MOOC. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com:
https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/technology-and-learning/ev1-
electric-car-and-mooc
Leon, B. (2015, October 2). Bizarre Car of the Week: 1996 GM EV1. Retrieved from
http://www.nydailynews.com: http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/autos/street-
smarts/bizarre-car-week-1996-gm-ev1-article-1.2383330
Mallick, K. (2014, January 5). The Legend of the GM EV1. Retrieved from
http://www.pluginindia.com: http://www.pluginindia.com/blogs/the-legend-of-the-
ev1
Staley, O. (2017, April 7). The General Motors CEO who killed the original electric car is
now in the electric car business. Retrieved from https://qz.com:
https://qz.com/952951/the-general-motors-gm-ceo-who-killed-the-ev1-electric-car-
rick-wagoner-is-now-in-the-electric-car-business/
Woudhuysen, J. (2008, January 1). The Electric Car Conspiracy ... that never was. Retrieved
from https://www.theregister.co.uk:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/01/woudhuysen_electric_car/
https://www.insidehighered.com:
https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/technology-and-learning/ev1-
electric-car-and-mooc
Leon, B. (2015, October 2). Bizarre Car of the Week: 1996 GM EV1. Retrieved from
http://www.nydailynews.com: http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/autos/street-
smarts/bizarre-car-week-1996-gm-ev1-article-1.2383330
Mallick, K. (2014, January 5). The Legend of the GM EV1. Retrieved from
http://www.pluginindia.com: http://www.pluginindia.com/blogs/the-legend-of-the-
ev1
Staley, O. (2017, April 7). The General Motors CEO who killed the original electric car is
now in the electric car business. Retrieved from https://qz.com:
https://qz.com/952951/the-general-motors-gm-ceo-who-killed-the-ev1-electric-car-
rick-wagoner-is-now-in-the-electric-car-business/
Woudhuysen, J. (2008, January 1). The Electric Car Conspiracy ... that never was. Retrieved
from https://www.theregister.co.uk:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/01/woudhuysen_electric_car/
1 out of 13
Related Documents
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
Unlock your academic potential
© 2024 | Zucol Services PVT LTD | All rights reserved.