The Power of Makerspaces: Heterotopia and Innovation

Abstract

“We all are makers” as a slogan of maker movement seemed to be a utopian imagination. Although spirits such as openness and sharing in the slogan successfully directed the attention of the government, the capital, and the general public to individual innovation, they might be unilaterally presented. Drawing upon Michel Foucault’s conceptualization of heterotopias, this article explores the features of makerspaces in Shenzhen, China, arguing that the heterogeneous culture generated by makerspaces played an essential role in stimulating innovation and expanding the impact of maker movement. This article presents four types of heterogeneous culture, the cultures of tolerance, liminality, compensation, and confrontation, which enriched the research on makerspaces and enhanced the status of makerspaces in innovation studies. Through the critical lens, this article shows the social and cultural meanings of makerspaces to makers, makerspace operators, and governments, calling for their rethinking in sustainable development of makerspaces.

1. Introduction

Although it was the contribution of Dale Dougherty to expand the impact of the maker movement, and his words of “we all are makers: as cooks preparing food for our families, as gardeners, as knitters” [1] encouraged a lot of people to join in making, the side effects of generalization of the maker concept led to the research of this article. Two cases showed the decline of the maker movement. On 15 November 2017, TechShop, the most successful commercially operated makerspace chain in the United States, announced its closure, and in June 2019, Maker Media, the creator of Maker Faire, laid off its staff and closed down. The two cases threw a pot of cold water on young makers who were keen to innovate and create globally, and the enthusiasm and will of youth innovation began to falter. The failure of promoting makerspaces and maker concepts does not mean the end of the maker movement. As the pandemic has resulted in more uncertainties in employment, the makerspaces as the buffer zone for the youth to gather and create become more essential. The makers still need physical spaces to meet, to communicate, and to innovate in order to maintain their interactions with society and their enthusiasm for creation. It is meaningful to rethink makerspaces, for it is beneficial to the maker activists and government to establish more valuable and culturally-concerned makerspaces.

However, as makerspaces transform and develop in different countries, the recognition of makerspaces differs among relevant subjects. Western activists of the maker movement share the discourse of new industrial revolution [2] and democracy [3,4], especially the democratization of technology production [5,6], which emphasizes that makerspaces as a form of democratization of digital manufacturing allow citizens or individuals to have the chance to carry out all kinds of projects [1,7,8], while Chinese makers have been experiencing identity shift since 2015. Both situations show that different subjects share different ideas of makerspaces. The makers themselves, especially in the earlier time, viewed the makerspaces as a community with the maker spirit of being sharing, open, and tolerant, or they tried to explore a commercial module to promote makerspaces. The enterprise and capital expected the continuous outcomes of makerspaces to ensure their profit. Schools treated the makerspaces as a buffer zone before students step into the society, as well as a place where they can cultivate the maker spirits of students. Last, but not least, the government hoped the makerspaces would accommodate people with technological and innovative ideas and the youth who graduated from universities, in order to relieve the employment pressure. What exactly are makerspaces? Are they a sharing community, a training institution, an entrepreneurship base, or a ‘hybrid’? This article would like to take Shenzhen as an example, discussing the true images and meanings of makerspaces in order to find the mechanism of innovation in them, as well as showing the relationships between makerspaces and innovative culture.As is known to all, Shenzhen is the most innovative city in China and it has attracted makers worldwide. In this case, the results of this article have implications for building makerspaces and promoting maker culture in developing countries. At the same time, it also enriches the picture of the maker movement on a global scale. This article includes seven sections. After the introduction is the literature review part, talking about the existing studies of makerspaces. Following that is the theoretical framework, which is associated with the concept of heterotopia stressed by Foucault. In the methodology part, this article presents participant observation and in-depth interviews as the main content. The analysis and findings of this article explain the formation of four types of heterogeneous culture. After stating the findings, the discussion and conclusion parts stress the value of the article.

2. Literature Review

The maker phenomenon originated in western countries, and was highly associated with creative industry in Britain and DIY (do it yourself) culture in the USA. Therefore, the studies regarding makerspaces are usually in the fields of management and economy, talking about the operations, models, and development of makerspaces. Recently, library makerspaces and university makerspaces have been typically researched by educators, seeking the strategies to make or design a makerspace [9,10]. Scholarly research outlines a rough picture of makerspaces that is unique and typical.

As makerspaces are usually seen as workshops for producing, they have mixed physical features with places such as offices, factories, and laboratories. The design of the office focuses on creating leisure and comfortable spaces with bright windows, well-designed furniture, and beautiful visual elements. Some of the new established makerspaces borrow the design ideas of modern offices, creating communication norms guided by the type and layout of the furniture [11]. However, no matter how good the spaces look, the key elements of makerspaces are still tools and machines [12,13], some of which are large and expensive, that individuals struggle to afford [14]. Some open-source hardware such as Arduino, Raspberry Pi, 3D printers, etc., make makerspaces a node of knowledge sharing [3], while the self-made tools lead the ideaof maker identity [15]. Tools and machines are typical features of makerspaces, as they make makerspaces not only for white-collar people typing on laptops, but for people who love to make and perform experiments. Makerspaces become the physical nodes of collaborative culture [16] where individuals or communities can physically access technologies and make things in a physical space [17]. The materiality of makerspaces emphasizes the significance of embodied presence, which means that the physical access to technology and innovation is much more important for people who love to create.

Makerspaces are places for meeting other makers, exchanging information, and forming communities [18], providing nonspecialists with access to sophisticated technologies [19] and leading to the idea development and transition among makers [20] and also amateurs. Furthermore, makerspaces represent a culture of the community, that is, sharing, open exchange of information, and experimentation [21,22]. Mitch Altman, as the founder of Noisebridge, considered the makerspace as a kind of physical space where people can explore what they love and have the support of community members through hacking—hacking means maximizing your abilities and being willing to share [23]. With the sense of community engagement with other makers [15], makers own the core spirit of collaborative community [24] associated highly with the makerspaces or the temporal makerspaces such as Maker Faire, regarding which Dale Dougherty stated the significance of exchanging ideas and creating a sense of community [1]. Aubrey Jenkins et al. argued that makerspaces promote equity, diversity, and creativity by creating shared and safe spaces that enable authenticity and peer-to-peer relationships in learning, hence forming a unique community where makers can “learn and make together, and thereby stay (and grow) together” [25].

Makerspaces as communities have nurtured a large number of makers who have unique personalities and characteristics. Makers are a group of people who build things for themselves with attitudes, skills, actions, practices, and expressions around DIY activities [15]. Norwegian scholars argue that makerspaces foster a “participatory culture” in which young people are transformed from consumers to active creators [26]. Susana Nascimento et al. argue that maker culture has grown and spread effectively from cultures such as hacking, and it contains not only the ultimate ideal of liberation and unlimited empowering action through technology, but also a complex relationship with the values and practices of a more social or collective consciousness, where young makers active in makerspaces have beliefs in “sharing and openness” [27]. Alison Powell argues that DIY activities in makerspaces are not utilitarian, but, rather, “joyful”, allowing for personal expression and exploration [3]. Hidden behind the “serious leisure” [28] are unique maker cultures representing the groups’ spirits of passion and exploration for creating.

The makerspaces are not absolutely places for working, playing, or chatting, but a mixed space, neither home nor office, providing “social experience outside of the home or workplace/school” [29]. In that case, some scholars regard makerspaces as “third spaces” [30,31], which originated from Edward Soja’s point of view in criticizing spaces’ historicality–sociality–spatiality ([32], p. 16). Makerspaces should not be viewed merely as experimentation sites with local manufacturing technologies but as places “where people are experimenting with new ideas about the relationships amongst corporations, designers, and consumers” [33], that arguably illustrate the unique human capacity and innovative culture that is unlocked through access to knowledge, infrastructure, and fundamental means of making [16].

Above all, makerspaces are a different kind of space because they have not been in the mainstream of innovation, even though they are promoted by leaders and encouraged by policies. Whether in the framework of innovation performance or in the vision of innovation researchers, they are similar to a “trend” that attracts a lot of attention at the time of their emergence, but is constantly abandoned at the time of their decline. The heterogeneous, marginal, and deviant characteristics of makerspaces point them to a more profound spatial and social relationship, that is, heterotopia.

3. Theoretical Framework

What are heterotopias and why are makerspaces heterotopias? How does makerspace as a kind of heterotopia stimulate innovation? To create the theoretical framework, the first step is to clarify the reasons why a makerspace can be seen as a kind of heterotopia.

3.1. The Core of Heterotopias

In a 1967 lecture [34], Foucault cited many spatial manifestations that destroyed the apparent continuity and normality of ordinary everyday space, such as schools, armies, nursing homes, mental hospitals, prisons, graves, cinemas, libraries, museums, fairs, carnivals, honeymoons, resorts, colonies, and ships. The places heterotopias referred to were real places with different norms, regulations, forms, or orders to daily life. When Foucault gave examples of nursing homes, mental hospitals, and prisons, he pointed out the heterotopias of deviation which absolutely shared other regulations with normal places in the same society. The cinemas were another kind of heterotopia as they could juxtapose incompatible places in a single real place, e.g., the three-dimensional images generated by the projector and the two-dimensional screen. The examples of libraries, museums, fairs, and carnivals were the places with different time order, i.e., the former (libraries and museums) meant the accumulation of time while the latter (fairs and carnivals) were the explosion of time. As it was from the lecture, the concept of heterotopias Foucault referred to was almost all-embracing. Foucault systematically described, explored, analyzed, and interpreted heterotopias through the newly constructed term “heterotopology”, which was a methodology and an analytical framework of heterotopias, including six principles.

However, Foucault’s seemingly concrete and rich examples of heterotopias actually show a great deal of incompleteness, abstraction, and rambling. It is not necessary for the space to contain six characteristics in order to be called a heterotopia, nor could the six principles completely and scientifically encompass all relations and logics of heterogeneous space. According to the contents of heterotopology, heterotopias share some core characteristics that distinguish them from other social places.

First, heterotopias should be understood as places out of the center. This overview shows that heterotopias have the quality of being different from everyday places, that is, heterotopias are places where an alternative spatial order exists. The intention of heterotopias is that they reflects the opposite side of society ([35], p. 44), questioning and challenging sameness. Of course, this does not mean that heterotopias are places of rebellion, but rather that they retain special and deviant elements outside of everyday places, such as groups and behaviors outside of social norms, outside of cultural understanding, etc. The postmodern view of the heterotopias is that they are spaces of “otherness” and an alternative composition of cities. With their inclusive, radical openness and infinite connectivity, heterotopias become sites of political and social significance for the empowerment of minorities and marginalized groups ([35], p. 47).

Secondly, heterotopias are results of the mediation and interpretation of culture. Heterotopias are not only physical existence, but are also highly relevant to society and culture. Foucault tried to establish parameters (heterotopology) for a completely different system of classification (heterotopia), which was not a fixed or strict structure, but a flexible, indeterminate, and unstable system ([35], p. 45). The ubiquity of culture means that heterotopias are highly composable and complex in their structures. However, the theory of heterotopias is used to explore the mediating and explanatory role of culture in different contexts and situations. That is to say, despite the variety and diversity of heterotopias, “heterotopia” as a theory can be seen as a critical approach. It is important and meaningful to discuss and analyze a space, a society, or a culture through the lens of “heterotopia”.

Thirdly, heterotopias indicate a new set of relations. The emplacements indicated by heterotopias are real places, characterized by representation, contestation, and subversion. They rely on recoding and heterogeneity, highlighting their differences from other places in their surroundings through their temporalities. They are places that are open but isolated and with controlled access. They are places of extremes, either creating an illusionary space that dismisses everything around them as unreal, or creating a (imaginary) perfect, detailed, well-arranged space, while in reality its counterpart (the real space) is “disorganized, poorly arranged, and chaotic” ([35], pp. 31–32). Those “alternative places” have properties that are related to, and yet different from, all other places, owning a critical aim to discover, explore, and analyze new sets of relations of spaces in a way of suspecting, neutralizing, or inverting the existing relationships of spaces. In the margins of modernity, heterotopias constantly threaten to undermine their closure and certainty [36]. By constituting a new collection of relations and forming a new philosophy of space, heterotopias reveal their essence of disputing power relations, places of knowledge transmission, and spatial concepts.

In summary, heterotopias are, firstly, real places, and at the same time they must be places out of the center that subvert the conventional spatial order. Secondly, heterotopias must not only be physical, but must also be the result of cultural mediation and interpretation, connecting various heterogeneous factors. Finally, heterotopias are flexible and net-like systems, aiming to map out the social and cultural aspects with a critical and perspective of “otherness”.

3.2. Makerspaces as Heterotopias

Makerspaces have marginal characteristics, and most youth have a vague perception of this. In the beginning, as someone who participated in the activities of the Chaihuo Makerspace, Shenzhen was advised not to “enter the pyramid scheme by mistake” (Maker Fu) when they introduced the space to their colleagues and friends at their original workplace, which is ridiculous but understandable. Makerspaces are a kind of heterotopia as they representthe core of heterotopias. Specifically, as physical spaces in the city, makerspaces are not conventional. They are not spaces that most people use in their daily lives, but they gradually take shape in order to solve the kinds of problems that cannot be solved in the space of daily life. It is evident that makerspaces have a certain characteristic of “deviating” from the space of everyday life. Meanwhile, the emergence of makerspaces has changed the situation that science and technology innovation is mainly dominated by institutions and large enterprises to one in which hobbyists and the public can also participate in science and technology innovation, breaking the monopoly of scientific research institutions and large enterprises on them. Thus, it can be seen that makerspaces meet the characteristics of heterotopia as “a place out of the center”. Secondly, as the maker movement flourishes around the world, makerspaces in various countries have undergone different evolutions. In Europe and the United States, makerspaces originated from hackerspaces, focusing on community-based operations, while in China, makerspaces practice the concept of “mass makerspaces”, which is more inclusive. From this point of view, makerspaces have experienced different cultural mediation and interpretation. That is to say, in different cultural backgrounds, makerspaces present different roles and meanings. In China, the formed makerspaces in different cities are influenced by different city cultures, social norms, and group personalities, reflecting different functional modes and spiritual cores. Finally, makerspaces exist in the urban system and are connected to various elements in the city. Even though they seem to be insignificant or seem to be a substream of innovation, they do exist in the innovation network and renew the composition and texture of the innovation network, forming a unique collection of spatial relationships in the urban innovation network.

3.3. Heterotopology as Framework

When Foucault discussed the six principles of heterotopology, he stated that he had no ambition to treat heterotopology as a science. It was only described in a narrative and introductory tone, accompanied by a large number of practical examples. Therefore, heterotopology could not form a systematic or standardized way of analyzing social spaces, just as Edward Soja once said that Foucault’s heterotopologies were “frustratingly incomplete, inconsistent, incoherent” ([32], p. 162). Foucault advocated and encouraged future scholars to treat the concept of heterotopias as a toolbox and to transform themselves into the users of heterotopias. In that case, this article is motivated to further explore the idea of heterotopias according to the six principles and to try to analyze the makerspaces from a perspective of cultural study.

This article use the six principles of heterotopology as the analysis framework to study makerspaces. However, by disrupting the order in which Foucault stated, this article reorganizes the six principles and fits them into the unfolding of specifics of makerspaces in Shenzhen. According to the features of makerspaces as heterotopias, this article tries to find different types of culture, which are key to innovation.

In order to better explore the relationships between makerspaces and innovation, the authors took various makerspaces in Shenzhen as academic fields between April 2018 and July 2019 and adopted methods such as participatory observation and in-depth interviews to promote research. With in-depth descriptions, this article presents the details of maker culture in Shenzhen before the pandemic. The authors visited 19 makerspaces in Shenzhen and had in-depth interviews with 23 makers. In addition, the authors had open-structured chats with 12 participants from several maker activities.

4. Methodology

In order to better explore the relationships between makerspaces and innovation, the authors took various makerspaces in Shenzhen as academic fields between April 2018 and July 2019. Phase I lasted for one week in April 2018 and involved visiting Huaqiangbei District and some makerspaces, experiencing the innovation and maker atmosphere in Shenzhen. Phase II lasted from July to August and October to November in 2018. In this phase, the authors mainly observed SZDIY Community and maker activities, including Shenzhen International Maker Week, Maker Faire Shenzhen, High Tech Fair, and Global Open Science Hardware Conference (GOSH). Phase III lasted for three months from April to July 2019, involving field work in Chaihuo makerspaces. The main methods included participatory observation and in-depth interviews. The authors visited 19 makerspaces in Shenzhen and had in-depth interviews with 23 makers. The in-depth interviews of makers included 10 semistructured questions: (1) What was your previous identity? When did you first become a maker? (2) What motivated you to become a maker? (3) How do you understand the word maker? What have you gained after becoming a maker? (4) What innovative projects are you working on? What are your next plans? (5) How did you meet your current partner? (6) Why did you choose to come to Shenzhen? (7) Has it caused any trouble to others when becoming a maker? (8) How do you think about the current phenomenon of makers? What do you know about the maker movement, maker spirit and maker culture? (9) What’s the difference between being a maker and an entrepreneur? What is the happiest situation you have encountered? What was the most difficult situation? What kept you going on? (10) What do you think it takes to be a maker (yourself, others, makerspace, government)? In addition, the authors participated in 30 activities held by the government or the makerspaces and had open-structured chats with 12 participants, mainly concerning the questions of the process and feelings in participating in maker activities.

5. Analysis and Findings

In China, makerspaces are usually seen in the cities, especially cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen, which are super big and modern, gathering lots of early Chinese makers. The makerspaces spread from the creative industry parks to technological parks, which are founded by individuals, companies, government, and foreign capital. However, those makerspaces are different from other spaces in the park as they share the different ideas of creativity and innovation. Furthermore, the makerspaces in different cities differ from each other. For example, makerspaces in Beijing seem to be the organizers of resources, makerspaces in Shanghai have the preference of being creative and artistic, while makerspaces in Shenzhen perform similar to laboratories, where new ideas and needs can be iterated quickly. That is to say, makerspaces have already formed a unique culture of innovation as they are a typical kind of newly-arisen city space highly associated with technology and innovation.

By analyzing the composition of makerspaces, such as people, space, activities, interaction among people and space, etc., this article found four types of innovative culture reflected especially by makerspaces in Shenzhen. They are the culture of tolerance (associated with the first and the third principles of heterotopology), liminality (associated with the fourth principle of heterotopology), compensation (associated with the sixth principle of heterotopology), and confrontation (associated with the second and the fifth principles of heterotopology).

5.1. Tolerance

The culture of tolerance indicated by makerspaces includes two aspects: one is about people, and the other is about space. In the description of the first principle of heterotopia, Foucault said there was probably not a single culture in the world that failed to constitute heterotopias, demonstrating the coexistence of multiple cultures, and he further took two kinds of examples, that were people in crisis or in deviance, to clarify the capacity of heterotopias. The existence of people is the first condition for a heterotopia to start functioning, and it is a prerequisite for space to be connected. Without the presence of people, heterotopia would be meaningless. In turn, without the tolerance of heterotopias, deviant people have nowhere to stay. The tolerance of space means the concept of juxtaposition in Foucault’s idea of heterotopias, that is, “heterotopia is capable of juxtaposing in a single real place several spaces, several sites that are in themselves incompatible”. He cited a number of very specific situations, such as stages, cinemas, and gardens, to show the places where many different spaces converge and become entangled and jumbled together ([32], p. 160), presenting a surreal and artistic representation of space.

5.1.1. Tolerance for Makers as Deviated Groups

Makerspaces show the tolerance of people, mostly of makers. Makers are the main subjects of makerspaces who share unique characteristics and spirits. However, makers are usually seen as the deviants of innovation, both in terms of group size and social awareness. Those engaged in science and technology innovation and creative industries, or what Florida calls the creative class [37], either work in research institutions, technology companies, design firms, or open their own studios. Makers, on the other hand, are more similar to the subculture groups, as they are not understood or recognized by the main culture as most of them are just hobbyists or amateurs of technology. The narrow definition of talent makes it difficult for young people whose ideas are not in line with mainstream society to find a place to act, so their good ideas are often stifled. The youth who love making are usually deviant in their daily life. The most important reason is that they easily become unsatisfied with their regular life and want to make some difference.

(Maker Fu) “I used to work in a traditional foreign-owned company which was controled by Chinese managers. It was quite a torturous process to stay in such a company. They rarely gave young people a chance.”

(Maker Zhen) “It was the most energetic time for us from the time we graduated to the time we worked for a year, and we wanted to change the world. All the friends around me, at the beginning, wanted to pursue their dreams. “I want to do high-tech”, “I want to do the entity”, “I want to do sales”, etc. These years down many people are defeated by reality.”

(Maker Jimmy) “Before I worked in the state unit, living the life of stability. But I am personally crazy about tinkering with circuit boards, so I quit the job.”

(Maker Leung) “I’m a Singaporean from Hong Kong, I don’t have a fixed job, and I go to maker events when there are any.”

In addition, the founder of Chaihuo Makerspace had once talked about his experience of becoming a maker in the newspaper, that is, “I was born in Ya’an, Sichuan in 1983. Since I was a child, I love to ‘wreak havoc’, always dismantle everything I can at home, and then reassemble, and enjoy the process very much…After graduating from university, I joined the manufacturing department of Intel Products (Chengdu) Co. After staying for more than ten months, I felt that my work life at Intel was too secure…Although I could learn a lot, it was not challenging enough and I felt it was too meaningless and I preferred to do something adventurous. In the end, I resigned despite my family’s obstruction” [38].

Those interviews and news show that a large portion of the makers are unable to achieve fulfillment in their current jobs, are not valued, or have lost interest in their jobs. It has been proven through observation that those makers who are considered to be “deviating” from mainstream careers often find solace in the makerspaces in three ways: they find people with similar interests, they find a way to realize their dreams, and they find personal value. The three forces intermingle and develop to form a constant upward momentum of innovation. In other words, the makerspaces provide shelters for the deviant youth, where they can escape from the pressure and misunderstanding in their formal work, find peers with similar interests, form teams, invent products, and move beyond their interests to seek industrialization. Since ancient times, China has had the literati sentiment of “sheltering the world’s poor scholars”. As a product of modernization, the makerspaces have realized the ancient people’s desire for “place” and “identity”.

Taking Silicon Valley as an example, what set it apart was not just Stanford University or the warm climate, but its openness to and support of the creative, the different, and even the downright weird. The Valley integrated those who were offbeat; it did not ostracize or discourage them [37]. The makerspaces are tolerant places where makers can try and put into practice certain pursuits and ideas that cannot be realized in the external society. In turn, it is the presence of the person that constitutes the interweaving of heterogeneous experiences and it is the young people who are regarded as “deviant” by the society that have the courage to break the rules and stimulate the creative energy of makerspaces.

In short, makerspaces embrace makers as the deviant innovators in the society, and their accommodation of makers ensures a stable place for such “deviant” groups to meet and interact with each other. Makerspaces strengthen and solidify the community of makers and increase the possibility and motivation of makers with different attributes to participate in the innovation process.

5.1.2. Tolerance for Spaces with Mutual Heterogeneity

There are various spatial forms with different structure, function, and nature inside and outside the makerspaces; some of them are even conflicting and discordant with each other, but the makerspaces juxtapose and unify the spaces that are different from each other and extend outward from inside the space, forming heterogeneous connections between each space.

The Chinese makerspaces are largely inspired by the “cafes” in Silicon Valley; the interplay of leisure space and office space is, therefore, the most typical spatial juxtaposition here, demonstrating the features of “in-between” of makerspaces. That is to say, the makerspaces try to model themselves in the atmosphere of neither work nor leisure. Furthermore, there are always tool areas, display areas and lecture areas in makerspaces, forming the informal connection inside the space.

Outside the makerspaces, the conflict scenes are always seen, for example, the makerspace is embedded in the living scene (SZDIY Community), or the modern makerspaces are above the crowded and cluttered market (HAX, Huaqiangbei International Maker Center), etc.

Shenzhen’s earliest self-organized makerspace, SZDIY Community, has its offline gathering place in a residential building, which looks no different from ordinary residents, but in fact is linked to hundreds of technology enthusiasts. Such a scene happens every day—next door lives a local resident who cooks every night and waits for his children to come home from work, while at the same time, in the SZDIY Community there is a scene of technology enthusiasts talking about open source and freedom, thinking about the future development of technology, conceptualizing the invention of a revolutionary product, or solving a brain-burning technical problem. What happens in the two spaces is almost unrelated and is even conflicting, because in most people’s perception, anything related to technology should be high-end, sophisticated, and futuristic, and it is not destined to happen “next door”. However, the makerspace embodied in a neighborly environment can strengthen the connection of high-tech and ordinary people. Sillver and Clark’s “scenescape” theory lists “neighborhoodliness” [39] as one of the fifteen subdimensions of scenario analysis, where neighborly communities present a warm and caring environment through intimacy and personal networks. A harmonious scene of warmth and care, which is crucial for science and technology innovation, is created by makerspaces such as SZDIY Community. Technology comes from and moves to daily life, so SZDIY, a way to set up a technology innovation space in residential areas, can be said to be the simplest and most direct way to juxtapose technology and daily life.

Another example of juxtaposition of incompatible spaces is shown obviously in Huaqiangbei District. On the upper floors of the noisy and crowded electronics market, which is stuffed with “one-meter counters” (Figure 1), there are three makerspaces.

“Downstairs are the electronics markets, upstairs are the makerspaces, they magically merge together”, said Kevin, the American maker of Huaqiangbei International Makers Center, “so that you can buy anything”. The makers living and working in Huaqiangbei District are similar to fish living in the ocean, with a vast space to explore and abundant resources to utilize. The complete and inexpensive industrial chain is the natural advantage to Huaqiangbei District, which is so attractive to hardware makers and venture investors. Because of the appearance of makerspaces, Huaqiangbei District has been more than an electronics market. “In Huaqiangbei you can find the technology related to your project and find a way to fit it with your product. It is close to the consumers and extremely close to the market, so we can predict whether our products are practical or not, and we can quickly modify and improve our products and business plans through the feedback from consumers”, said Ata, a maker from Huaqiangbei International Makers Center. The makerspaces show the ability in juxtaposing visually incongruous spaces and seemingly unrelated groups, where technology and ordinary life, elite and grassroots, meet. The juxtaposition of space reflects a surprising connection of space and people, based on which individuals are no longer entirely shaped by identity and place, but, rather, the interaction between people and space, therefore expanding the meaning of “place” and highlighting the status and significance of space.

5.1.3. The Culture of Tolerance

Although tolerance as a kind of innovation culture is a cliché, many scholars believe that tolerant and diverse communities usually have an open and weak social structure in which new ideas can flourish, people have few barriers to communicate and learn from each other, and knowledge and creativity can constantly overflow [40,41,42]. The makerspaces embrace heterogeneous identities and cultures where multiple people coexist, and contradictions become unity, forming weak social structure via the flow of space. Showing the ability to reorganize people and space, the makerspaces as connectors with tolerance can connect almost everything and all kinds of phenomena, which creates a state of “flow”. In the movement of fixed and unfixed space functions, in the arrival and departure of objects and people, multiple “flow spaces” are formed in the makerspaces. The flow brings the vitality and infinite possibilities of space, and the flow also forms multiple inclusive spaces and cultures, such as the inclusion of the unknown, the inclusion of conflicts, the inclusion of differences, etc., which protect and support the innovation at its very beginning.

5.2. Liminality

As Foucault said, the fourth principle of heterotopias is that they are most often linked to slices in time. The heterotopia begins to function at full capacity when men arrive at a sort of absolute break with their traditional time. The makerspaces sometimes play the role of temporary spaces for activities or create the isolated atmosphere for makers to produce, which both break the order of time in the real space, leading to the culture of liminality.

5.2.1. Liminal Space of Maker Activities

An important way to promote the maker culture is to hold various maker events. The activities held in the makerspace vary in size and influence, but they all profoundly shape the image of makers and people in the city. In the maker activities, the makerspaces become temporary locations for strangers to meet. As the activities are generally temporary, they will be suspended, end, or disappear, and after the activities, participants can choose to continue to communicate or withdraw completely. The activity spaces, as “middle landscapes” [43], become a buffer zone for unfamiliarity. In a state of psychological relaxation, interpersonal interactions are more likely to occur, which creates the possibility of deeper interactions and more cooperation between makers and participants.

(Maker Jimmy) “After I came to Shenzhen, my invention was actually still a prototype. However, after I came here, I found that some makers from Shenzhen stood there for several hours, chatting with me for more than an hour, and stood there and refused to leave, thinking that this is what they wanted. I felt for the first time that something was possible and could happen.”

The experience in the temporary activity space provides the opportunity for “embodied” real perception and exploration. What is disappearing in the contemporary era is proximity, while the temporary makerspaces use the open public space of the city itself to create an instantaneous burst of neighborhood, free from the constraints of media technology to a certain extent. It relies on the threshold experience of individuals entering the physical space in order to think and act differently. The temporary space has more people moving around, carrying more information and creating more frequent information exchange opportunities. For makers, the liminal experience not only drives away their tension, but also exists in their minds for a long time, which becomes a kind of motivation and inspiration.

5.2.2. Liminal Space of Tool Room

The first time I visited Chaihuo Makerspace, I was attracted by its tool room, which was the largest and most well-equipped tool room among the makerspaces I have visited in Shenzhen (Figure 2). Upon entering, there was a blue shelf full of small tools such as wrenches, screwdrivers, pliers, saws, etc., as well as measuring instruments such as voltmeters and level meters. Several transparent PVC vacuum pipes hung down from the ceiling to the concrete floor, similar to a python. On the left-hand side, along the glass wall, there were turret milling machines in grass green, CNC milling machines in red, and industrial-grade laser cutting machines in gray and white in turn. On the right-hand side, there were red automatic soldering machines, orange robotic arms, green bending machines, and other medium-sized tools, and a small 3D printer area. Semiautomatic mechanical tools such as bright yellow woodworking table saws were placed randomly on the ground and desktop, to name a few. Faced with large machines and precision instruments, I felt the smallness of people. The first time I saw the tool room I was shocked—although I did not know the name of the large tools, or how to use them, those mechanical arms, spindles, and pushers seemed to “beckon” to me, saying “come and turn me! ”! There was really no space that could accommodate such a variety of machines at once.

The tool room provides another type of liminal experience. As Yi-Fu Tuan stated, “tools and machines enlarge man’s sense of space and spaciousness…A tool or machine enlarges a person’s world when he feels it to be a direct extension of his corporeal powers” ([44], p. 53). With the fulfillment of tools, the makerspaces become the space where the desire for innovation can be stimulated more easily. The chance to use tools in the makerspaces is higher than an office, which attracts more people to join the process of making and producing, generating “accidental entrepreneurs” [45] with flourishing innovation ideas. This shows that the tool spaces have the ability to enlarge human capacity and potentiality.

5.2.3. The Culture of Liminality

The fourth principle of heterotopology, about the rupture of time, gives an incredible experience to people and space, and while the experience of people explodes, the dynamics of space is also activated, therefore forming a continuous interaction between people and space, and both the potential of people and space are stimulated.

It is the combination of chance and randomness that becomes the very fabric of innovation and diffusion [14] and it strengthens in a liminal situation. In its ambiguity, openness, nondeterminism, and temporality, the makerspace as a kind of liminal space enhances the possibility of information exchange, resource-matching, and opportunities creation. As mentioned in the idea of heterotopia, it “isolates space and time at the same time”, and in that way, the makerspace breaks the traditional space–time order. It opens up a place separated from the real space and time, where people live a different life and experience a unique practice. In the midst of countless small and large activities, the makerspace becomes a temporary but carnivalesque space that simultaneously compresses and mixes time and space, creating a sense of explosive excitement that acts on all kinds of groups in it. A unique spatiotemporal experience is created. In the constant flow of time and space, whether eternal or momentary, a different way of experience and interaction is constructed. As David Harvey points out, heterotopias are where “life is experienced differently” [46]. In the different life, strangers join together and communicate more freely, which is beneficial to nurture innovation.

5.3. Compensation

The sixth principle of heterotopology is that heterotopias have a function in relation to all the space that remains. This function unfolds between two extreme poles, that is, heterotopias have two poles of reality and illusion. Similar to the colonies, they act as a compensatory spatial system as the sovereign state places its own intentions on them. That is to say, between the two extreme poles of heterotopias, the reality and illusion, there more possibly is a broad space of compensation operating.

The compensation zone of makerspaces consists of the policies launched by the government and the cooperation developed by traditional industries, both reflecting the the imagination of different subjects on innovation. In that case, makers and makerspaces are linked into a network centered on maker innovation, allowing the marginalized individuals and startups to repair the fracture zone of innovation network.

5.3.1. Maker Policies as a Compensated Network

Around the construction of makerspaces, the government at all levels have formulated a series of policies including founding, support, and assessment. On the one hand, the policy support has a significant positive effect on the operation of the makerspaces, which means the makerspaces can reduce the financial pressure and focus more on the operation of the space itself. On the other hand, it increases the healthy competition among the makerspaces and enhances the competition consciousness among the makerspaces, which causes the makerspace to pay more attention to the effectiveness of its operation. By laying out policy support, the government aspires to make detailed plans of makerspaces in which innovation can function perfectly. Financial support policies (subsidies), technical support policies (Internet, big data, cloud computing), talent support policies (talents from colleges and enterprises), and public service support policies (rent, water and electricity exemptions, tax exemptions) are the most important elements of the policy-driven network. The policy support aims to lower the threshold of innovation and entrepreneurship, encourage scientific and technological personnel and college students to start their own businesses, support public services for innovation and entrepreneurship, strengthen financial funding guidance, and improve the entrepreneurial investment. Although the maker policies form a compensated network in makerspaces, the makerspaces have to bear the government’s expectations of “low cost, facilitation, all-factor, openness”, “specialization”, and “refinement”. The terms “accelerate the construction”, “vigorously develop”, “make full use of”, and “continuously promote” fully reflect the government’s urgent expectation for the makerspaces in the “mass innovation” era.

5.3.2. Industrial Cooperation as a Compensated Network

Driven by interests, the makerspaces evolve from a platform to an ecology and become a conceptual body for the effective integration of creativity, capital, and talents. The creation of makerspace in China is no longer a transplantation of European and American maker culture by maker pioneers and individuals, but has become an action of investment and financing institutions, unicorn enterprises, and even real estate developers to invest funds to seek business expansion and income returns. Hence, a compensated network of industrial cooperation is established. The first case is about the cooperation between Chaihuo Makerspace and Vanke Real Estate. Jane, a Taiwanese architect of Vanke Real Estate, said, “We invited Chaihuo to come over and invite them to join the smart building solution, helping Vanke to upgrade the building and serve better community residents, which is also Vanke’s sentiment and social responsibility”. Of course, the sentiment is one side, and the benefit cannot be ignored. The real estate developers and the most influential makerspace in China have formed a “complicity of interest” relationship, which shows that the makerspace does not reject the intervention of corporate power. The makerspaces in Huaqiangbei District show the other aspect of industrial cooperation, that is, the mutual influence between traditional and new industries. The makers rely on the low prices and abundant material resources in Huaqiangbei while merchants in Huaqiangbei hope that the makers’ new products can facilitate the operation of their stores. Meanwhile, the traditional enterprises such as Huaqiang Group and Saige Group both opened up several floors to establish makerspaces. Huaqiangbei relies on dozens of years of electronic components industry base and electronic product production supply chain, attracting the attention of makers worldwide, therefore opening up another business path. The symbiotic relationship between makerspaces and Huaqiangbei is also a symbiosis between traditional business and high-tech, conservative thinking, and creative thinking, domestic market, and overseas market.

5.3.3. The Culture of Compensation

The makerspaces operate through the conception of different subjects where arguments and negotiations are intertwined. Now that the demand for makers has passed, the only way for makerspaces to be sustainable is to empower makers and make profits at the same time. The makerspaces have to maintain good communication and cooperation with both the upstream and downstream of product design and production. Through policy intervention and space mediation, various circles, including makers, capitals, and industries, are moving toward symbiosis with the makerspaces, forming a compensated network. For example, the government’s policy not only acts on the makerspaces, but also influences the investment of enterprises and capital in the makerspaces, which laterally promotes all parties to strengthen the maker innovation. The Chaihuo Makerspace not only builds an exchange platform for domestic and foreign makers, but also provides chances for makers to better integrate into the industry chain. In Huaqiangbei District, the close connection among makers, merchants, and traditional enterprises not only realizes the dreams of makers, but also satisfies the needs of partners who can provide industrial resources, making traditional industries gradually have a cross-border vision to realize industrial upgrading through collaboration with makerspaces. By weaving a network of compensation, makerspaces realize a model in which individual innovation is connected to specialized and market-oriented technological innovation. Governments, industries, capital, and enterprises step out of the comfort zone of innovation and turn their attention to individual and risky innovation. Similar to Foucault’s metaphor of the ship, the makerspaces connect the unknown and hope. As a construction rich in the spirits of exploration and expansion, the makerspaces map the imaginations of different subjects for their hope for the perfect operation of innovation. Through various strategies and actions to compensate for the innovation network, a more diversified and rich kind of innovation practice is launched.

5.4. Confrontation

The second principle of heterotopias is that “a society, as its history unfolds, can make an existing heterotopia function in a very different fashion” so that the heterotopias change their meanings when the society and the culture develop. The fifth principle of heterotopias is that heterotopias always presuppose a system of opening and closing that both isolates them and makes them penetrable. In other words, the heterotopic site is not freely accessible as is a public place. According to the spirits of openness of the makerspaces, people can easily enter the physical space of them. However, the situation has gradually changed. Most of the makerspaces nowadays set rules for people to join in, that is to say, not only the passers-by and visitors, but also the makers may not be actually “invited” by the makerspaces. The makerspaces in that case show the confrontation by the way of setting up various barriers.

5.4.1. Privacy as Confrontation

I would like to start the discussion with a case study of visiting the HAX Hardware Accelerator. It is not easy to visit the makerspace because you cannot find the specific address of its physical space on the Internet. This successful makerspace is an almost untraceable “invisible” place. How exactly does one find HAX? After failing to find it alone in Huaqiangbei, I started to contact an acquaintance and learned that Shenzhen University would soon hold the 2018 “Cultural Technology Innovation Forum” and one HAX staff would participate. On the day of the conference, a senior research analyst from the HAX gave a presentation; after that, I obtained his business card and was told that I could make an appointment by sending an email to him. That night, after sending the email, I soon received a reply, agreeing to my request to visit HAX, and provided a WeChat contact, through which the staff sent me a series of text and pictures of how to find HAX, asking me not to tell others.

Out of curiosity, I asked him the reason why I should not tell others the address of HAX in the interview. The reply was that it was a way to ensure that the innovation process would not be disturbed. In HAX’s view, the process of innovation and entrepreneurship for makers is very difficult and lonely, and they also need a lot of concentration to devote to their creative endeavors, so the makerspace must create a stable, quiet, private, and protected environment to support them. “This will interfere with the progress of the maker’s project, which is not good for them”, said the analyst, “many people want to visit HAX, but we don’t host them very often. Here is meant for entrepreneurship and creativity”. Open spaces may “threaten self’s fragile integrity” ([44], p. 54); the open spirit of makers does not necessarily mean that they can be generated in open spaces either. The success and reputation of HAX in the maker industry is certainly not entirely due to their “closed door” approach, but it is worth considering the purpose of maintaining the independence and stability of makerspaces. This kind of opening and closing system of the makerspaces in the form of “boundary maintenance and discipline” ([32], p. 161) can be viewed as a way of anticonnection. In reality, it proves the positive effect of keeping the space closed and stable for innovation.

5.4.2. Maker Cultural Capitals as Confrontation

Although a makerspace is open and welcomes any maker or person, theoretically, it is difficult for ordinary people to enter, and even more difficult for makers to set up in a well-operated makerspace.

“Cultural capital” is a powerful conceptual tool used by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu to critique capitalist society, referring to a form of value that marks the social identity of actors which is regarded as orthodox cultural interests, consumption patterns, cultural capacities, educational qualifications, etc. Cultural capital is considered in terms of concrete states (spirituality, taste), objective states (cultural commodities), and institutional state (objectified form) [47]. Sarah Thornton borrows the insights of “taste” and “habitus” from Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory and proposes “subcultural capital” in the book Club Culture [48]. The concept of “subcultural capital” is the style and personality represented by “hipness”, which gives its owner an identity and status in the subcultural group. Accordingly, we can understand “maker cultural capital” as a kind of cultural capital expression between “cultural capital” and “subcultural capital”. Specifically, it is a variety of factors that have uniqueness and influence in the makers group, which together become the characteristics and capabilities of the makerspaces. Microscopically, the skills, creativity, negotiation ability, and cooperation ability of makers can be the expression of “maker cultural capital”, while the values, operation mode, development strategy, and resources of makerspaces can be regarded as a kind of “maker cultural capital” of the space.

In the case of Chaihuo Makerspace, it is necessary to examine the matching degree of makers and projects, and only individuals who are generally suitable for the business focus and development needs of the space can be admitted. The concept of “makerpros” (professional makers) is proposed in the Chaihuo Makerspace, and the skills required of the resident makers are high, as they must have at least one manufacturing and design-related skill, including woodworking, metalworking, 3D-printing, laser cutting, soldering, Arduino, Raspberry Pi, CNC, network technique, structural design, aesthetic design, PCB design, and innovative development. At the same time, unlike coworking spaces, which can be occupied as long as there are available spaces, Chaihuo Makerspace requires a detailed understanding of the projects and needs of the incoming makers, and can only be occupied after assessment by the makerspace operators.

The requirements of the space for makers reflect what kind of makers can be based in and develop in the makerspace for a long time. First of all, skills are the key capital that makers possess, which are also the visible cultural capital of makers. If a maker can use a laser cutter, woodworking carving machine, or even a CNC lathe, then he or she will receive the approval and admiration of other makers. A “pro–am” (professional–amateur hybrid) situation can describe this group of people, who are very talented amateurs with the ability to become professionals in their field, but are definitely not professionals. Secondly, the cultural capital of makers is not suddenly acquired, but increasingly accumulated, even dating back to the adolescence of makers. Many makers have enjoyed hands-on manufacturing since childhood. In the process of studying at university, combined with the expertise learned, these young people are more likely to invent a product. Finally, the most difficult thing to crack in the maker cultural capital is the code of creativity generation. While skills can be acquired and become more proficient over time, the generation of ideas is highly uncertain and unrepeatable. Consequently, the makers who can come up with great ideas usually become the soul of the team. Through the maker cultural capital, the makerspaces establish a spontaneous and dynamic exclusion mechanism which, to a certain extent, forms a dynamic and stable innovation core. This power will not be easily disturbed and destroyed.

5.4.3. The Culture of Confrontation

The maker culture advocates openness, sharing, and the idea that “everyone can be a maker”, but in the actual operation process, there are certain restriction mechanisms, as mentioned above. The makerspaces themselves are experiencing changes and uncertainties during their development and struggling among the operating concept, mechanism, and spiritual core. In the midst of uncertainty and instability, makerspaces have become exclusive spaces that are open on the surface but cannot be truly integrated by makers, attempting to subvert the characteristic of openness from Western maker culture. By setting access conditions to create a suitable innovation environment and establish a new innovation order, they have become a kind of space that is isolated and permeable and requires “permission” to enter. It is in the complex dialogue and confrontation between heterogeneous spaces and real spaces that the makerspaces try to explore a collaborative path, adapting to the traditional innovation rules while seeking a balance of retaining their own critical spirit. The goals for makerspaces are to enable the makers, to attract the attention of traditional industries and capital, and to play an active role in the continued promotion of the global maker movement, via which the individual innovation can be treasured.

6. Discussion

As many scholars have researched the operational modules of makerspaces from perspectives of management, education, and libarary service, the culture in makerspaces is always ignored or merely summarized as the culture of DIY, sharing, and openness. This shows the neglect of cultural properties of makerspaces in research. In fact, the makerspaces, as a kind of heterotopia, are a mixture of unique cultures. In that case, this article focuses on the culture of innovation generated by makerspaces, showing the power of makerspaces as the heterogeneous medium, which enriches the research on makerspaces and enhances the status of makerspaces in innovation studies. The renewal of makerspaces and the mutual influence among makers, makerspaces, capitals, and governments are still essential topics for scholars and policymakers who care about technology innovation developing continuously.

However, there are three main limitations of this study. Firstly, this study takes the makerspace as the starting point and also talks about different people in a general way, failing to develop a focused group study. Secondly, this study mainly focuses on the discussion of profitable makerspaces, but the examination of library makerspaces and school makerspaces is missing. In that case, further studies in makerspaces, such as the cultural elements of university and makerspaces, are worthwhile to focus on. Meanwhile, it is meaningful to study specific makers, for example, graduating college students. Last, but not least, although this article shows the examples of makerspaces formed by different capitals, e.g., foreign capitals, state capitals, and private capitals, it seldom stresses the influence of different capitals on the makerspaces, which ignores the connections between makerspaces and the capitalist market forces.

7. Conclusions

This article reorganized the principles of heterotopology described by Foucault, creating a cultural analysis framework so as to focus on the cultural properties of makerspaces. The research showed that the heterogeneous culture generated by makerspaces played an essential role in stimulating innovation and expanding the impact of the maker movement.

As heterogeneity is the main issue when investigating the makerspaces [19], it is also the key point to generating different cultures in the makerspaces. Makerspaces as a kind of heterotopia have four features, demonstrating the power of mediation and forming the culture of innovation. At first, the makerspaces connect unique groups, unrelated spaces, and various subjects that can not easily meet, reflecting the connectivity of reorganizing people and space and promoting the exchange of resources and information in material space. The culture of tolerance forms.

Then, through the temporary space and activities, the makers, makerspace operators, and activity participants intertwine their embodied practices to form a flow space, reflecting the interactivity of breaking the space–time order. The culture of liminality appears.

Thirdly, the makerspaces are reflections of ideal spaces, as they receive the attention of the government (policies), industry, and capital (cooperation), together gaining compensated strategies, which in turn react to the makers and makerspaces and form a compensated network. Therefore, the culture of compensation is established.

Lastly, the makerspaces maintain the innovative atmosphere for makers through setting rules and strengthening maker cultural capital. That is to say, the makerspaces choose to confront the spirit of openness and the idea that “everyone can be a maker” in order to make sure the innovation happens more frequently inside them. The culture of confrontation emerges.

Above all, the study shows that the makerspace as a kind of heterotopia is the bearer and mediator of unique cultures and a heterogeneous cultural creation system. Makerspaces are the central axis for the convergence, integration, and delivery of global makers and organizations, technology and innovative products, capital and resources, creativity, and pioneering ideas. If there is no makerspace, the ideas of makers may not be realized, the innovation potential of makers cannot be stimulated, and innovation deeds cannot be spread. Obviously, the makerspaces have a positive effect on urban innovation, not only in the fact that they support a large number of creative makers to carry out innovative practices, but also that they serve as a window to show the public the lively maker life and culture other than high-tech, which feeds back and shapes urban innovation.