the speed of life

7/28/2019 The Speed of Life

1/29

FlowofIdeas:articles

TheSpeedofLife:ThesigniicanceofKarlMarxsconceptofsociallynecessary

labour-time

MichaelNearyDepartmentofSociology,UniversityofWarwick,Coventry,UK

GlennRikowskiFacultyofEducation,UniversityofCentralEngland,Birmingham,UK

ApaperpresentedattheBritishSociologicalAssociationAnnualConference2000,

MakingTimeMarkingTime,UniversityofYork,1720thApril

TheirstfaceofthefutureisFAST:speedwillbeeverything.Neverbeforehasthe

futuresorapidlybecomethepast.Historyisaccelerating(PatrickDixon,

Futurewise,1999,p.1).

Youmustsavetime.Yousavetimebygoingfaster:everytechnical,aesthetic,

inancial,economicandphilosophicalconsiderationoftheindustrialand

postindustrialerasassumesthatfasterisbetter.Metaphorsoftimeare

miscegenatedwithmetaphorsofmoneyandvalue(StephenBayley,Thespeedof

life,NewStatesman,25thOctober1999,p.43).

[T]henewworldofbusinessrequiresaninstinctiveappreciationofadifferent

logic[]Thinkofitasthemoneyvalueoftime.Cuttingedgepeopleand

companiesarerethinkingthenatureoftheirrelationshipwithtime(GinaImperato,TheMoneyValueofTime,FastCompany,JanuaryFebruary2000,p.40).

Economyoftime,tothisalleconomyultimatelyreducesitself(KarlMarx,

Grundrisse,1858[1973],p.173.).

Introduction

Incontemporarysocietyitappearsthatspeedandthetyrannyoftime(Reeves,

1999)areforcesgatheringincreasingstrengthinallareasofsociallife.Matthews

(1999)notesthat,subjectively,weexperiencethisasasenseofaccelerationinourdailylives(p.44).Theseeffects,notesLuke(1998),areglobalintheirscopeand

impact(p.163)thoughherecognisesthattimecompressionhasdifferential

intensityandoutcomesinparticularlocalitiesandforparticularsocialgroups.The

speedoflifehasincreasedthroughoutsociety:objectively,asallsocialprocesses

aresubjecttoanincreasingNeedForSpeed(Matthews,1999)aswetrytosave

time,andsubjectivelyasweexperiencethesensationofspeedinsociallife

lowofIdeas:articles http://www.lowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=Speed

of22 05/08/101


2/29

(Gleick,1999).ForLuke,thespeedoflifeincontemporarysocietyhasnowreached

suchintensitythatitrecreatestheworldashumanshavenotknownit(p.165).

DavisandMeyer(1998)assureusthatwearenotimaginingthingswhenwe

experiencelifeasBLUR[1].BLURisanamalgamofconnectivity,speedand

intangibles(seeFootnote1),which,forDavisandMeyer,arethederivativesof

time,spaceandmass(p.6).Thesethreephenomenaincombinationareinexorably

blurringtherulesandredeiningourbusinessesandourlives(ibid.)[2].

Existingaccountsofthetendencyforincreasedspeedandtheexhaustionoftimein

contemporarysocietytypicallypositafast(Agger,1989)orturbocapitalism

(Luttwak,1999),butwithoutprovidinganexplanatorydynamicofthesocialdrive

forincreasedspeedinsociallife.Thispaperprovidessuchanexplanatory

dynamic.Itunfoldsatheoryofthespeedoflifeincapitalistsociety.Thistheory

restsuponilluminatingthesigniicanceofKarlMarxsconceptofsocially

necessarylabourtimeforexploringthesocialformoftimeincapitalistsociety.In

movingtowardsthistheory,isitnecessarytoindicatehowitisgroundedwithinamoreexpansiveunderstandingofthesocialuniverseofcapital.Thisinvolves

analysisofcertainforcesatworkinthissocialuniverse:value,surplusvalue,

labourandcapital.Italsoinvolvesdelineatingtwostructuringconcepts:totality

andsocialform.Afterthisinitialexploration,thepaperproceedstodevelopa

theoryofthespeedoflifeincapitalistsocietythroughthewritingsofMarx,butalso

drawingupontheworkofMoishePostone(1996)onabstracttime,historicaltime

andabstractlabour.Thetheorydemonstrateshowthesocialformoftimein

capitalistsocietyincorporatesabsoluteandrelativemoments.Itisthelatterthat

groundstheaccelerationofsociallifeincapitalistsociety.

Precedingourpositivecontribution,thenextsectiondiscussesbrielytwo

alternativestothetheoryofthespeedoflifeadvancedinthispaper:afocusonthe

communicationsandinformationtechnologyexplosion,andglobalisation.Thisis

followedbyasectionwhichcontraststheworkofBarbaraAdam(principallyAdam,

1995)withthatofPhilipTuretzky(1998).Takentogether,thisbodyofwork

incorporateselementsthatourtheoryofthespeedoflifeseekstoavoid.Inthe

formercase(Adam),itisarguedthatthemovementfromsocialconstructionismto

subjectivismendsinarelativism(andultimatelysolipsism)thatnegates

explanationofthesubjectivefeelingsoftimeexhaustion.Inthelattercase

(Turetzky),thepolaroppositedangersareuncovered:ahistoricism,essentialism,

reiication,naturalismandanextremeformalism.Insummary:Adamswork

providesrichsocialcontent(butfailstoindicateanadequatesocialformforits

analysis),whilstTuretzkystheoryofbecomingtimeincorporatesastrongsenseof

formbuthasinadequatesocialcontent,whichultimatelyresultsinthereiicationof

time(adangerpreviouslynotedbyNeustadter,1992).Athirdpreparatorysection


of22 05/08/101


3/29

dealswithAdams(1995)explanationofthespeedoflife:whichturnsouttobea

restrictednotionofsocialspeedgeneratedbyphenomenaofaspectsofeconomic

life(e.g.profit).

TheTimeLords

Socialtheoristshaveprofferedanumberofexplanationsoftheincreasingspeedoflifeincontemporarysociety.Thetwoleadingformsofexplanationareeitherthose

basedontheexplosionofcommunicationsandinformationtechnologies(which

speedupmanyprocessesandactivitieswithineverydaylife),orglobalisation,or

somecombinationthereof(e.g.Dixon,1999).

Aleadingexampleoftheirstkindofexplanationoftheacceleratingspeedoflifeis

theworkoftheradicalsocialtheoristPaulVirilio(1995)[3].Viriliopointstowards

theexplosionofbroadcastmediaandthehallucinatoryutopiaofcommunication

technologies(p.35)assigniicantdevelopmentsmakingforanacceleratedworld

wherespace,timeandthegreatnessoftheuniverse(p.41)arecompressedina

perpetualshrinkingeffect(ibid.,originalemphases).Theproblemwiththisformof

explanationisthatitrestsonatechnologicaldeterminism.Viriliofailstotheorise

asocialdynamicpoweringtechnologicalchange.HefacesthesameprobleminThe

ArtoftheMotor(1995)whenheaddressestheemergenceoftransorposthuman

lifeforms(e.g.thecyborg,asinRikowski,1999)[4].

OnthesecondfrontofexplanationglobalisationtheworkofAnthonyGiddens,

andmorerecentlyBarbaraAdam,hasbeensignificant.Moreover,thesetheorists

haveledgeneraldevelopmentinthesocialtheoryoftimeintheUKinrecentyears.Inhislatestbook,RunawayWorld,Giddens(1999)exploresglobalisationas

theforcedrivingonthespeedoflife.Hesinglesoutthenewglobalelectric

economyanddevelopmentsinthemeansofcommunicationaskeyphenomena

alteringtheverytexturesofourlives(pp.912).Socialgeographers(seearticles

inMartin,1999;LeyshonandThrift,1997)havealsohighlightedthenewswiftness

ofcomputerisedinternationalmoneymarkets,thetechnologisationofbankingand

thedevelopingvirtualityofmoneyassigniicantaspectsofglobalisation,

engenderingthespeedingupofallformsofmonetarytransactionandeconomic

relations.However,Giddens(1999)notesthatglobalisationisalsopertinentwhen

exploringsocial,cultural,aestheticandotherareasofcontemporarylife.Furthermore,globalisationisnotjustoutthere,remoteandfarawayfromthe

individual(p.12),butaffectsthemostpersonalandintimateaspectsofourlives

(sexuality,marriage,family),includinghowweexperiencetime.

Inearlierwork,Giddens(1991,1984)discussedhowsocialsystemsareconstituted

acrosstimespaceandhenceanexplorationoftimeandspaceisattheheartofhis


of22 05/08/101


4/29

structurationtheory(1984,p.110).Startingoutfromvarioustheoristsworking

withintimegeography,Giddensshowsthatwhilstthewritingsofthesetheorists

provideausefulresourcefortheorisingconstraintsonactionandunderstanding

howtheroutinesofdailylifeareconstituted,theyalsoincorporateanotionofthe

individualwhichstandsoutsidestructure(1984,p.117).Thisdisablesattemptsto

theorisestructurationasthesimultaneousemergenceofstructureashuman

agencyandagencyastheconstitutionofstructure.

Secondly,arguesGiddens,thetimegeographersoperatewithazerosumnotionof

powerasasourceoflimitationsuponaction(ibid.).Forhisstructurationtheory,

however,GiddensfavoursaneoParsoniangenerativetheoryofpower:anonzero

sumconceptioninvokingtheabilitytogetthingsdonethroughcooperation.

GiddensendshisdiscussionoftimewithanexaminationofFoucaultsideason

timingandspacing.ItisFoucaultsneoParsonian,nonzerosumconceptionof

powerthatparticularlyfascinatesGiddens(see1984,pp.145158).Giddensisless

enamouredwithFoucaultsweaknotionofagency.However,heexpressesan

interestinwhatFoucaulthastosayontherelationofdisciplinarypowerto

modalitiesoftimeandspace(p.153).GiddensdiscussionconcludesthatFoucaults

analysesofprisonsandschools,assitesoftheoperationofdisciplinarypower

wherethecontroloftimeandspaceareintegralelements,areultimately

unsatisfactory.AgencyistooweakinFoucault.ForGiddens,prisonersarenotjust

bodiestobepunishedinprisons;theyarealsoagentsatleastforthosepartsof

thedaywhensurveillanceslackens.Withthisinsight,Giddensmovesontothe

workofIrvingGoffman,insearchofbetterresourcesfortheorisingagencyinthe

specialcaseofharshregimeswhereitisatapremium.Thisdiscussionlosestheconceptoftimealtogether,andmeandersoffintoaFoucault/Goffmancomparison.

Interestingly,priortolosinghisfocusontimeinhismusingsonFoucaultand

Goffman,Giddensnotesthat:Thebuyingandsellingoftime,aslabourtime,is

surelyoneofthemostdistinctivefeaturesofmoderncapitalism(1984,p.144).He

failstofollowupthisinsight[5].Whimsically,headdsthatthetemporalregulation

ofthedaymayperhapsbefoundinthechimeofthemonasterybell(ibid.).Though

hepointstowardsthecommodiicationoftime(ibid.)inindustrialcapitalism,

Giddensisdisinterestedinfollowingupwhythisoccursandthesocialconditions

generatingthetimecommodity.Inlaterwork(e.g.1991),Giddensdiscussestime

oncemore,buthisinterestinsystematicallypursuinglinksbetweentimeand

globalisationwanes,ironicallyastheimportanceofglobalisationinhismost

recentwritingsrises(in1998,1999).

Contrast:AdamandTuretzky


of22 05/08/101


5/29

[I]nspiteofalltheprogress,thenatureoftimeremainstoalargeextenta

mysteryforus(IgorD.Novikov,TheRiverofTime,1998,p.265).

theEgyptianeffect[Is]thetendencytocollapsetheancientandthenewintoa

singletemporaldimension,arrangingthemalongsideoneanotherandleavingthe

resultingcontradictionwideopen(MarioPerniola,Enigmas:theEgyptian

MomentinSocietyandinArt,1995,p.74).

DevelopmentonthebasisofGiddensthinkingontherelationsbetween

globalisationandtimeisfurtheredintheworkofBarbaraAdam(1991,1995).In

Time&SocialTheory(1991),AdamcritiquesGiddensearlyworkontime(i.e.his

1979,1984and1987).SheindicatesthathisthoughtsontimelowfromBergsons

conceptofdure.ForAdam,thisisthecontinuousemergenceofnovelty,wherethe

futureasaformofbecomingisinexcessofphenomenaasconiguredinthepast

(p.24).However,notesAdam,bythetimeGiddenscomestowriteTheConstitutionof

Society(1984),hisdiscussionoftimeiscompressedintoasterilemodelwherethe

dureofdaytodayexperienceischaracterisedasoperatinginreversibletime

(1991,pp.2526).Furthermore,arguesAdam,Giddenscompletelyreworks

Bergsonsconceptofdurebyaninsistencethatitexpressesrepetition.Inupshot,

Giddensendsupwithanotionofdurethatreferstocyclical(reversible)timeand

linear(irreversible)time.Thisisthestandarddualistrenderingofsocial(the

former)andnatural(thelatter)timethatformsthestartingpointformuchsocial

analysisoftime,arguesAdam.ThroughoutTime&SocialTheory(1991),Adam

arguesconsistentlyagainstdualismingeneralandthesocial/naturaltimedualism

inparticular.Itisherparticularapproachtodissolvingthisdualismthatinterests

us.

Whilstacknowledgingthattimeisafactoflife,Adamseekstodevelopaconceptof

socialtimethatencompassesitsmultipleexpressions(p.24).Herstartingpointis

thepropositionthattimeisfundamentallyasocialconstruction.Shenotesthatthis

propositionisinlinewiththeperspectiveofmostsocialscientiictreatiseson

time(p.42).However,sheacknowledgesthatmerelystatingthispropositionisnot

enough;itdoesnotdissolvetheenigmaoftimetimeastranscendent,i.e.a

phenomenonwhichcannotbereducedtoeithersocialconventionoramethodof

regulatingsociallife.Thus:Adamhasacomplementarypositionwherethesource

oftimemustnotbeignoredsinceitiscentraltoanadequateinterpretationoftimeinsocialtheory.(p.43).Butthisreintroducesthenatural/socialtimedistinctionas

aformofinteractivedualism wheretheconceptsofsocialandnaturaltimeare

implicatedintheexplanationofeachother,butadualismnonetheless.

Adamsnextpropositionisthatwhensocialandnaturalscientistssearchforthe


of22 05/08/101


6/29

sourceoftimethenitisfoundtorepresentamultitudeofphenomena,suchas:

physicalentropicprocesses;lifeprocessesofgrowth,decayandinformation

processing;mechanical,biological,andhumansocialinteractions;naturaland

societalrhythms;noveltyandbecoming;selveswithidentities,memories,social

histories;andacapacitytocommunicateandsynthesise.Theyencompass

calendars,mechanicalandatomicclocks;themotionofparticlesandlight;andspeed,velocity,andacceleration(1995,p.43).Fromconsiderationofthisragbag

list,Adamconcludesthatitisimpossibletoholdthat alltimeissocial.She

maintains,therefore,thatnaturaltimeisintimatelytiedtotheconceptualisation

ofsocialtime.(1995,p.48),andhencetheoriesofnaturaltimeneedtobe

recognisedasanimportantfocusforsocialscienceenquiry(p.49).Onthislast

proposition,thesocialtheoryoftimeincorporatesdifferentconceptionsofnatural

timeexistinginhistoricalerasandindifferentsocieties.

TowardstheendofTime&SocialTheory,Adamcanbefoundstillwrestlingwiththe

natural/socialtimedistinction.Ontheonehand,sheholdsthatherTime&Social

Theoryhasdemonstratedthatthecharacteristicsidentifiedwithnaturaltimeare

infactanexclusivelyhumancreation(p.150,ouremphasis)sothatallconceptions

oftimecanbeviewedassociallyconstructed.Ontheotherhand,shealsomaintains

thatherstudyoftimeshowsthatnaturaltimeisverydifferentfromitssocial

scienceconceptualisations.(pp.150151,ouremphasis)implyinglimitstosocial

constructionistexplanationsofnaturaltime,andopeningupnaturaltimeasa

transcendent,ahistoricalconstant.Stilldissatisiedbytheoriesofdualitieswhich

areimpervioustoecologicalprinciplesortosuchideasasresonanceand

implication,andnotingthatdualismsentailanimplicithierarchicalevaluation(p.153),Adamleavestheproblemofadequatelydissolvingthesocial/naturaltime

dualismtohernextbook,Timewatch(1995).

IntheopeningchapterofTimewatch,Adamnailshercolourstothemast.Shestarts

outfromadiscussionofmytime,ourtimeandothertime,withtheimplication

thattherearemanytimes.Thelowoftimecanvaryasbetweenindividuals[6],

socialgroups,societiesandhistoricaleras.Inthisway,Adameasilyslipsintoa

relativism(andtemporalsolipsism)whichprovidestimesociologistswithan

ininiteresearchandwritingprogramme:thecomparisonofdifferent

social/personaltimes.AdamstatestwopropositionsunderpinningthisapproachtotimeattheendoftheirstchapterofTimewatch:amultitudeoftimescoexist;

and,everydaylanguageprovidescluesaboutthecomplexityofsocialtimes(p.42).

Thisapproachimpliesthetaskoftimesociologistsistoproviderichdescriptionsof

differentsocial/personaltimes.Adamstwochapters(oneonhealthanddeath,the

otheroneducation)functionasexamplesofthistypeofwork.


of22 05/08/101


7/29

WhenAdamexploresrelationsbetweentimeandglobalisation(chapter5)she

revertstoadualismbasedonthelocalglobal.Thus,whilsthermyriadsocialand

personaltimesoperateatthelocallevel,astandardisedtimeisalsoestablished

intheeraofglobalisation.Globalisationhomogenisessocialtimethrough

standardisedclocktime.Inglobalisedcapitalismfromthelatetwentiethcentury

onwards,aglobalpresentisestablishedthroughtechnologicaldevelopments

fromthewirelesstelegraphtonuclearpower[7](p.123).Confusedly,however,

AdamstillmaintainsthatoneofthepivotalconcernsofTimewatchisthesubtle

dissolutionofdualisms(p.150).Thisisnecessarytoincludethecomplexityof

multiplesocialtimesbasedonthepersonal,social,political,scientiic,

technologicalandglobal(p.151)suchthatstandardisedglobaltimebecomesjust

oneamongmanytimes.Lateron,Adamdrawsbackfromafullblooded

postmodernismonthebasisthatpostmodernistsrejectthetotalisingtendenciesof

theabstractformoftimeflowingfromstandardising,globalclocktime.She

maintainsthatherpositionfallsshortofpostmodernismas:

Iemphasizetheuniquenessandrelativityoftimecreationwhilesimultaneously

pointingtowardsthecentralimportanceandhegemonyoftheabstract,

decontextualised,neutralmediumofclocktime(1995,p.156).

Adamstillmaintainsthatsheisnotembracingdualistthinkinghere.Furthermore,

shealsoconfusesrelativitywithrelativism.Adamclaimsthathertheoretical

positionencompassestherelativityofthetemporalwhilstacknowledgingthata:

Focusonthecomplexityoftimeandspacesentailsafundamentalrecognitionof

embedded,interactiveknowledgewhichisprincipallyrelative(p.162,ouremphasis).

Sheattemptstoavoidwhatshecallsthespectreofrelativismbyassertingthatit

isaconsequenceofthefailureofrepresentationaltheoriesoftruthtoattaina1:1

relationbetweenphenomenaandrepresentations.Adamimpliesthat,asshedoes

notholdtothisconceptionoftruth,thensheisnothauntedbythespectreof

relativism.Truthisobtainedbyconsensusbuiltwithincultural,linguisticormoral

communities(p.163).

Throughoutherwork(1991,1995),Adamattemptstoholdtoasocialperspectiveontimewhereabstractclocktimeisoneofanininitenumberoftimes.Recognition

oftheenigmaoftime,thenotionthatitisafactoflifestandingabovelifeitself,

leadshertoclingontoabstractclocktimeasanexpressionofthisenigma.Whilst

assertingthatshewishestodissolvedualismssheholdstothesocial/naturaltime

dualism,tothelast.


of22 05/08/101


8/29

Adamsattempttoexorcisethespectreofrelativismfromhersocialuniverseon

thebasisthatsheisdealingwiththerelativityoftimeratherthantherelativismof

timesdoesntholdup.Hermultiplicityoftimesnurturesthespectreofrelativism

onanontologicalbasis:thesocialuniverseiscomposedofanininitenumberof

times.Thisispreciselywhysheneedsstandardisedabstractclocktime:our

temporalexperiencescanbetranslated,comparedanddifferentiatedwith

referencetoglobaltime.Herprogrammefortimesociologicalstudiesdependson

standardclocktime;butthisresurrectsthedreadeddualismoncemore.

FromtheoutsetinTimewatch,Adamembracesatemporalrelativism,atemporal

solipsismeven(my/yourtime),whichmakesitimpossibleforhertogeneratea

socialtheoryoftime.Hermultiplicityofsocialandpersonaltimesmakesquestions

concerningthesocialformthattimeassumesincontemporarysociety

unintelligible.Whenshehastoappealtoadominantformoftimeitisnotasocial

butanaturalisedformofglobal,standardisedtimemeasuredbytheclock.Adam

oscillateswildlybetweentreatingthisformoftimeasoneamongstalltheothers,asatranscendentmarker,asahegemonicformorasanaturalphenomenon.

Adamsrichdescriptionsoftimeinhealthandeducationcontextsareinteresting,

buttheymerelyreemphasiseherreluctancetosearchforasocialformthatcan

generateasocialtheoryoftimeincontemporarysociety.Intheevent,Adam

providesadescription(ortableau)ofsocialandpersonaltimes.Itwouldbe

overgeneroustosaythatAdamhasatheoryofsocial/personaltimesratherthana

theoryofsocialtime.Sheprovidesnosystematicdiscussiononthegenerationand

genesisofsocial/personaltimes.Richdescriptionultimatelyfallsshortof

explanation.

TheworkofPhilipTuretzkyinhisbookTime(1998)illustratestheoppositeof

Adamswork.TuretzkyhasastrongsenseoftheformoftimeinhisneoDeleuzian

theoryofbecomingtime.However,Turetzkystheoryoftimelackssocialcontent.It

isahistorical,essentialist,embracesnaturalism,and,intoto,becomeswhat

Lukacher(1998)callsaformoftimefetishism.Thetimefetishistseekstouncover

theessenceoftime,topintimedown,togetatwhattimereallyis.Intheprocess,

timeispresentedasaquasimaterialentity,autonomousof,buthavingrealaffects

upon,everydaylife.Thetimefetishispreciselythatwhichquickensthelifeofthe

subjectbyspeedingupthecircleofappropriation,arguesLukacher(p.5).Withthis

preamble,letusnowturntoTuretzkysexpositionofbecomingtime.

Turetzkystheoryofbecomingtimearrivesinthelastchapterofhisbook.Itbuilds

uponanhistoricalanalysisoftheoriesoftimethatstartsoutfrompreSocratic

GreekphilosophersandendswithBergsonandDeleuze,takinginmanyother

influentialtimetheoristsalongtheway[8].Thus,asummaryofTuretzkys


of22 05/08/101


9/29

becomingtimenecessarilyunderplaysthedeephistoricalanalysisthatformsits

foundations.

Turetzkydevelopsathreestagetheoryofbecomingtime.Itisbasedonthree

interconnectedsyntheses.Theirstsynthesisoftimeproducesthelivingpresent

(p.212).Itconnectssuccessiveinstantsaspastandfuture(ibid.).Thispoints

towardstheflowoftime.Timecantbelikeadottodotpicture,otherwisetherewouldbegapsintime.Turetzkypositsthisirstsynthesisasaconnectiveonethat

bindsinstantsintoasingletime(ibid.).Thisirstsynthesis,notesTuretzky,isa

passivesynthesisoftime(p.213);thatis,itprecedesrelectionandmemoryof

individuals.Itdifferentiatespastfromfuture,whilstsimultaneouslyconnecting

them.Itgrounds(butdoesnotexplain)thelivingpresent(ibid.).

Theirstsynthesisoftimeoccursintime,arguesTuretzky(p.214).Ifthisisso,then

theremustbethepastinwhichthisirstsynthesisisconsummated.Thesecond

synthesisconstitutesapureaprioripastintime:itprovidestemporalspacefor

theirstsynthesis.Butthesynthesistakesanoddformthatgeneratesparadoxes.

Theseparadoxesaresimultaneouslyconstitutiveparadoxes:theyindicatewhythe

purepastmusthaveitsownbeingcontemporaryandcoexistentwiththepresent

eventhoughitisneverpresent.(ibid.).Thebeingofthepresentrequiresitsown

constitutionaspastinorderthatitcanpassandtakeonthenotionofpast.For:

everythingpasthasalreadybeenconstituted.Thepast,then,mustbe

contemporaneouswiththepresentitwas.Thisexplainswhyeverypresentmust

pass;everypresentisalreadypastwhenitispresent.Thisparadoxleadsto

another,thatthepastcoexistswitheachnewpresentwithrespecttowhichitispast.For,ifeverypresentisalreadypastwhenitispresent,thenthepastisnotin

anyonepresentandcoexistswitheachnewpresent(pp.214215).

Theseparadoxesarecrucial,notesTuretzky.Theygenerateconsciousnessoftime

andtheconditionsofrepresentationofphenomenaintime(p.215).Thepure

past,onthisanalysis,isasynthesisofthewholeoftimenotjustaseriesof

temporalinstants(p.215).Itisthetotalityoftimeoutsidethelivingpresent.Thus,

themodeofbeingofthepurepastisvirtual,asitsexistenceunderpinsevery

particularpresent.Since:

itisvirtual,thepastcomprisesthewholeoftime,butthiswholediffers

essentiallyfromanysetofelementsorinstants .Thisexplainshowthevirtualpast

makesthepresentpass.Sinceitisthewholeofthepastthatcoexists

contemporaneouslywitheverypresent,itopenseachsetofpresentsontoanew

present.[And]sincethewholeofthepastisopen,continuouslydifferingfrom

itself,itguaranteesthe irreversibilityoftime(pp.215216,ouremphases)


of22 05/08/101


10/29

Thepresent,then,includesthecompressionofsuccessivepresentsinthenow(the

livingpresent)andthisisalsothemostcompressedlevelofthepast(p.216).

Turetzkypointstowardsthedualitiesinvolvedhere(tothehorrorof

postmodernists):actual/virtual,present/pastandmaterial/ideal.However,asthe

presentincorporatestheactualpresentandthevirtualpastthen:

theremustbeanoperationbywhichthepresentsplitsapart,makingtheactualpresentpasswhilepreservingthevirtualpasttheremustbeanoperationby

whichthepresentsplitsapart,makingtheactualpresentpasswhilepreserving

thevirtualpastinitself(p.217).

Thisoperationpointstowardsthethirdsynthesis.

Thethirdsynthesisinvolvessplittingofthepresent,andisthemostfundamental

synthesisoftime(ibid.).Itgivessubstancetotheothertwosyntheses.Time

basicallyisthissplitting:

Thethirdsynthesisconstitutesthepastinthesametimeasitspresentis

displacedbyitssuccessor.Timesplitsintotwoheterogeneousdissymmetrical

emissions,onetowardthefuture,makingthepresentpass,andanothertowardthe

past,coexistingwhollywiththepresentitwas.Thethirdsynthesis,then,generates

theothertwo.Essentially,timeconsistsinthissplitting,intheessential

disequilibriumbetweenactualandvirtual,theirdisplacementandtheimpossibility

oftheirequivalence(p.217,ouremphasis).

Turetzkyviewsthethirdsynthesisasanempiricistsolutiontothetranscendental

problem,theproblemoftimeseemingtobeaboveandbeyondhumanlife,as

eternalmarkerofexistence.ForTuretzky,thetranscendentalproblemissolvedin

thefollowingway.Theirsttwo(passive)synthesesoftimegivetimeitsconditions.

However,thereneedstobeathirdelementthatfacilitatesthepastmakingthe

presentpastandthethirdsynthesisenablesthisthroughsplittingthevirtual

fromtheactual,andhencekeepsthepastopen,makingthepresentpassinthe

productionofsomethingnew.(p.217).Moreover:

bydoingsointhepresentitselfitshowshowtheidealrealityofthevirtualpast

canbelongtoexperience.Whiletheirstsynthesisconstitutesthepresentandthesecondthepast,thethirdpassivesynthesisconstitutesthefuture ,producing

somethingnewbysplittingvirtualfromrealandmakingthepresentpass.The

thirdsynthesisevokesaNietzscheaneternalreturn,inthatever-newbecomings

ariseineachmoment(pp.217218,ouremphases).

ForTuretzky,theproductionofnoveltythroughthesplittingofvirtualpastfrom


0of22 05/08/101


11/29

actualpresentconstitutesthefuture.Thisprocessgroundstime,whichwas

previouslytranscendent,asthegenerationofnewmomentsasfuture.Turetzkycalls

thistranscendentalempiricism(p.221).Histheoryofbecomingtimeuncoversthe

conditionsunderwhichsomethingnewisproduced.(ibid.).Ourexperienceoftime

ascontinuallynewvalidatesthetheoryofbecomingtime:thisistheempirical

substratumunderpinningthetheoryofbecomingtime.

AnumberofobservationscanbemaderegardingTuretzkysaccountof

becomingtime.First,itisformalisticandabstract,asthesocialcontentofthe

theoryisminimal.Whilstthethirdsynthesisgroundsourconsciousnessoftime

throughitssplittingprocess(virtual/actualrecognition),itdoesthispurelyatthe

leveloftheabstractindividual.Atmost,itisanabstractpsychologyoftime.Of

course,thesharingofthisexperienceandatheoryofhowthisprocessbecomes

embeddedwithinsociallifemightbeawaytowardsasocialtheoryoftime.Butthis

speculativeextensionofthetheoryofbecomingtimecouldalsobeconstruedas

indicatingthat,onitsown,itisnotasocialtheoryoftimeatall.

TheabstractnatureofTuretzkystheoryisatonewithitsahistoricism.It

incorporatesPerniolasEgyptianeffect(1995),thecollapseoftheancientandthe

new.Itisatheoryoftimethatappearstobeabovehistoryandatthispointits

transcendentalism,thetranscendenceoftimeabovehumanhistorystillremains,

despiteitsempiricism.Thereisnosensethatthesocialformoftimevariesas

betweensocialformations(e.g.ancientsocieties,feudalism,andcapitalism).

Indeed,thethirdsynthesis,withitsstressonthefutureasthegenerationofthe

newisexplicatedwithoutreferencetowhatissociallynew,trulydifferent.Thus:

theproductionofthenewaccordingtoTuretzkystheoryofbecomingtimeappearstobean.Humanagencyandhistoryseemtobeinessentialtothelowof

becomingtime.Atthisjuncture,timereassertsitselfastranscendent(tohumanity

andhumanhistory,tothehumaningeneral)andas naturalflow.Thetheoryof

becomingtime,therefore,doesnotavoidnaturalism;thenotionthattimeisa

naturalphenomenon.Fromthis,itfollowsthatthesearchfortheessenceoftimeis

avalidformofexploration.Onceonthisessentialisttrack,thenotionofasocial

theoryoftimebecomessubordinatetothetaskofpinningtimedown,ofdeining

itsessence,uncoveringthestuffoftime.ForTuretzky,timeisthethirdsynthesis.

However,oncenaturalismandessentialismareadmittedthentheloodgate

controllingscientiictheoriesoftimeisopened.Turetzkysformal,logico

philosophicaltheoryofbecomingtimelosesitslustreasbigtimescientiictheories

oftimeareadmittedintotheieldofenquiry.Oncethisisdone,however,thesearch

fortheessenceoftimeresolvesitselfintotheprogressoftheoreticalphysics.With

thismove,someofthepropositionswithinTuretzkystheoryofbecomingtime

begintolookshaky.Forexample,thatthetheoryofbecomingtimeguaranteesthe


1of22 05/08/101


12/29

irreversibilityoftimeisnotnecessarilyausefulguaranteeoncethescientiic

searchfortimesessenceisadmitted.Recentresearchhasindicatedthatthe

reversibilityoftimeisapossibilityinsomepartsoftheuniverse(perhapseven

withinourownGalaxy)wherestarsunexplode,eggsunbreakandlivingthings

growyoungerwitheverysecond(Chown,2000).

Thesearchfortheessenceoftime,whattimereallyis,alsoreiiestimeasathingwithindependenteffectsforhumanlife.Itisthissearchfortheessenceoftimethat

hasbedevilledthedevelopmentofasocialtheoryoftime.Neitherishorologisma

studyoftimemeasurementanyadvanceontemporalessentialism.Studiessuch

asWaughs(1999)andBrands(1999)merelyevadeessentialismthrough

concentratingonhistoriesoftimemeasurement.Theirstudiesimplyessentialism:

thehistoryofhorologyshowsthattimemeasuringinstrumentsfromearlysundials

andwaterclockstocontemporaryatomicclocksareapproachingtheessenceof

timethroughincreasingaccuracyoftimemeasurement.Thecircularityhereisthat

timeisaprovisionaloutcomeofitsmostaccuratemeasuringdevice,withtherealessenceoftimejustoverthetemporalhorizonneverinallypinneddownbythe

horologicalinstrument.Evenatomicclocksarenotabsolutelyaccurate(Falk,

1998).Thesinglesecondtheygain/loseinthreemillionyearsof(theoretical)

workingyieldsroomforimprovement!

Iftheessenceoftimeispertinenttodevelopingasocialtheoryoftimethen

prospectivesocialtheoriesoftimeareatthemercyofreifiedtimeandtheoriesof

natural,transcendenttime.Adamsinstincttoseparateoutnaturalandsocial

timeinordertodevelopatheoryofthelatterwascorrect.Butshefeltunableto

doitinpractice,maintainingthedualismthroughouttwobooks,whilstdenyingthatshewasdoingit.Ifadistinctionbetweensocialandnaturaltimecannotbe

maintained,thensocialtimetheoristsareinevitablydrawnintospeculationsabout

naturaltime,therelationsbetweensocial/naturaltimeandwhattimereallyis,

arguesLukacher(1998).However:

Rigorouslyspeaking,wecannotsaywhethertimeisiniteorininite,orifthereis

anininiteseriesofiniteuniversesthatriseandfall,orwhethercreationis

sequentiallysingularorsimultaneouslymultiple(i.e.themultiverse)(Lukacher,

1998,p.4).

Speculationwhichdelvesintotheseissuesiswhatgivestimefetishismnewlife,

arguesLukacher.Hisstrategyisnottosearchfortheessenceoftimebuttoexplore

whathasbeensaid,whatarguments,concepts,words,andimageshavebeenused

toindicatethepersistentaporiaoftimeand/ortoconceal,evade,orsimplyignore

it.(pp.45).Hisprogrammeforthestudyoftimeisbasicallyaculturalstudyofthe


2of22 05/08/101


13/29

philosophyoftime:howdifferentphilosophicconceptsoftimeareembeddedin

theirrespectivesocietiesfromancientGreecetotheModerns(Schopenhaur,

KantandHegelthroughtoNietzsche,HeideggerandDerrida).Whilstthis

programmedefetishisestime,inpracticeLukachersanalysisisbasedonanarrow

viewofwheretimeconceptsultimatelyemanatefrom:philosophy.Thestudyby

Alliez(1996),isadeeperversionofaculturalhistoryoftime.Herelateschangesin

theconceptionoftimemorecloselytosocialtransformations(religionin

particular),buttheemphasisisstillprimarilyuponphilosophy.Butthisreally

missesthepoint.Evenifthesewritershadexploredconceptsoftimeasdeveloped

withinparticularsocietiesinafullersensebeyondtheconinesofphilosophyand

religionwithoutasocialtheoryoftimetheyaremerelyaddingontemporal

historical/culturalrelativismtoAdamsmultipletimes.

Inthissectionwehaveindicatedwhat,forus,arepositionstoavoidindevelopinga

socialtheoryoftime(oratheoryofsocialtime).Ontheonehand:richdescriptions

withaccompanyingrelativism,solipsismandnosenseofthesocialformoftime.Ontheotherhand:abstract,ahistoricalandformalisticaccountswithweakto

nonexistentsocialcontent,invokingthedebilitatingproblemsof

transcendentalism,naturalism,essentialism,reiicationandtimefetishism.Before

developingourownalternative,thenextsectionexaminesbrielyAdams(1995)

accountofthespeedoflife.

TheSpeedBarrier

Thereisalwaysabattleagainsttime,againsttheobstaclesthatpreventordelay

thefulilmentofadesireortherepossessionofsomethingcherishedbutlost(ItaloCalvino,SixMemosfortheNextMillennium,1996,p.37).

Timetheoristshavedescribedthespeedoflifeinincreasingdetail.Theyhave

cataloguedtheapparentquickeningoftimeinmanyareasofcontemporarysocial

life,yetsofarexplanationsofthephenomenonhavebeeneithersupericialor

halfhearted.JamesGleick(1999)isacaseinpoint.Whilstprovidingstriking

anecdotesandexamplesofthespeedoflifewithinavastrangeofspaces,sites,

organisations,institutionsandeverydayexperience,Gleicksexplanationofit

comprisesanunsystematiclistingofwhathecallsthenewaccelerators

(pp.4956).Thesenewacceleratorsaresupposedtoexplainthespeedingupofsociallife.Thelistincludesamphetamines(speedingupathletes),caffeine,alcohol

andtobaccoasspeedbasedpursuits(p.50),scienceiction(especiallytimetravel

stories)andtransport.Thishardlyamountstoanexplanationofthespeedoflifein

contemporarysociety.ItcouldalsobearguedthatGleickconfuses explanadumwith

explanans,assomeofhisexplanationsofthespeedoflifethenewaccelerators


3of22 05/08/101


14/29

appeartobeaspectsofthephenomenonrequiringexplanation.Lukes(1998)

explanationofthespeedoflifeisalittlemoresystematicthanGleicks,butitstill

amountsbasicallytolistingaspectsofwhathecallskineticculture:forexample,

MotorolasIridiumdigitalcommunicationsnetwork.

BarbaraAdam,inTimewatch(1995),providesamuchmoresophisticatedand

powerfulexplanationofthespeedoflife,theapparentquickeningofthepaceoflifeincontemporarysociety.Adamstartsoutfromthenotionofefficiencyandthe

socialdrivetoincreaseefficiencyinsearchofprofitincontemporarysociety.

Profitability,shenotes,isafunctionoftheamountofmoneyspentonlabourtime.

Thus:tobecompetitiveistobefasterthanyourrival(p.100,ouremphasis).

Labourisspeededupsothatenterprisesareincreasinglyproitablethrough

producingmoreinagivenperiodoflabourtime.

However,notesAdam,althoughspeedisvaluedandthevalorizationofspeed

pertainstomanyareasoflifeeducation,sport(asexamples)speedisnotitself

avalue(ibid.).ShenotesthatinsomeMiddleEasternandAfricancountriesspeed

andhastearenegativelyvalued.Fortunately,Adamrealisesthatthissortof

comparisonisgettinghernowhereandnotesthatthecontemporaryspeed

fetishismrequiresanotherlookattheworktimemoneyeficiencyproitcircle

(p.101).Shearguesthatthetimeeconomycanbeviewedastheimplicationof

timeintheeconomicinvestmentreturnproitcycle(ibid.).Theshorterthetime

betweeninvestmentanditsreturn,thenthegreatertheproit.Themotivationis

forirmstoshortenproductioncyclessothatprofitisspunoffineverdecreasing

timeperiods.

Secondly,Adamarguesthatalthoughprofitisanunderpinningforceforincreased

speedineconomiclife,competitionplaysarole.Ifafirmproducesacommodityof

equalqualityinlesstimethanthemajorityofotherenterprisesthen,everything

elsebeingequal,thatenterprisecanreduceitspricesonthebackofthisincreased

productivity.Moreproductioniscrammedintothesameamountoftime.

Itisproitabilityandcompetitionthatareatthebasisofthespeedingupof

economiclifeforAdam,andthesefactorsunderscoretheWesternapproachto

timeandspeed,sheargues.Thisisapurelyquantitativeapproachtotime,and:

OneoftherationalesfortheWesternapproachtospeedisthustobesoughtinthe

quantiication,decontextualization,rationalizationandcommodiicationoftime,in

thecalculationoftimeinrelationtomoney,eficiency,competitionandproit

(1995,p.101).

Adamthencontraststhisformoftime,whichisassociatedwitheconomicsandthe


4of22 05/08/101


15/29

quantitativetimeoftheclock(ibid.),withopenendedtimegivenovertocaring,

friendshipsandpersonalrelations.Atthispointtheanalysistailsoffinto

moralisticcriticismsofquantitativeclocktime,particularlyhowitdevaluesthe

times(andlives)ofthoseworkingtogentlerrhythms.

Inherbriefanalysisofthespeedoflife(1995,pp.100102),Adamgetsfurtherin

threepagesthanthesupericialanddescriptiveapproachincorporatedinthewholeofGleicksbook.Ontheotherhand,Gleickprovidesascattergunapproachto

abroaderspectrumofsociallife.Adamsaccounterectsakindofspeedbarrier:

thereissomeplausibilitytoherexplanationofthespeedofeconomiclife,buther

concentrationontheeconomiclimitstheutilityofherexplanationintermsofthe

speedingupofsociallifeintoto.Furthermore,profitandcompetition(withthe

conceptofefficiency)dotoomuchwork,evenwithinthenarroweconomicsphere.

Theaccountsofthelinksbetweenprofitandcompetition,timeandtheneedto

savetimeineconomiclife(thusgeneratingspeed)terminateintheconceptof

profit.Adamsaccountofprofitasmotivatorfortimesavingiswhollyonesided.Shefailstodiscusslabourasexistinginbutalsoagainstcapitalontheissueof

labourtime;resistancestospeedupintheirstinstance,butalsothegeneral

battleovertimeinthelabourprocess.Proitappearsasmagicalmotivator,

abstractedfromsocialrelationsofproduction,unexplainedandtakenforgranted

anditsrelationtolabourtimeisundertheorised.Despitethesecriticisms,inthese

fewpagesinTimewatch,Adampointsthewaytowardsadeeperanalysisofthe

speedoflifeananalysisdevelopedintherestofthispaper.

Beforesettingoutonthisanalysis,itshouldbenotedthatAdamsworkonthe

speedofeconomiclifealsoindicatestheneedtobreakthespeedbarrier.Thatis,toframeanexplanationofthespeedoflifewhichdoesnotjustpertaintoeconomic

life.OnewayoutofthismightbethroughtheworkofAntonioNegri(withHardt

1994;1996).Intheseworks,Negridevelopsatheoryofthefactorysocietyorsocial

factory.Onthisbasis,thedrivetosavelabourtimeandalltheModerntechniques

oftimesaving(Taylorism,timemanagement,jobanalysisandflexibilisationof

labourandsoon)areextendedtothewholeofsociety.However,Negridownplays

theroleofvalueinexplanationsofthephenomenaofcontemporarysociety[9]

whereasinourexplanationofthespeedoflifewestartoutfromvalue,asthe

followingsectionmakesclear.

KarlMarxsSocialUniverse

happinessliesalsoinknowledgeofthemeteors(KarlMarx,Doctoral

Dissertation1841,p.68).

ThepurposeofthissectionistoprovideanelaborationoftheEinsteinisationof


5of22 05/08/101


16/29

timethatgetsbeyondthephilosophicalandsociologicalspeculationssofar

examined.FollowingEinsteinsmethodwewillsituateoursocialtheoryoftime

withinasocialcosmologyofthemovementofmatter.Themainpointofour

expositionisthatitisonlypossibletoovercometheproblemshighlightedwith

othersociologicaltheoriesoftimeiftimeisconsiderednotasadiscretesocial

event;but,rather,whentimeisunderstoodasthetemporalaspectoftheexpansive

socialuniverse.Thepointofthisexpositionisthentodevelopasocialcosmology

withinwhichthatuniversecanbeobservedandanunderstandingofsocialtime

derived.Itisourcontentionthatthemostdevelopedtheoreticalcosmologyofthe

socialuniverseisfoundintheworkofKarlMarx.WhileMarxhasprovideduswith

aframeworkwithwhichtochartthemotionsofsocialphenomenahisworkisbyno

meanscompleteandthereismuchworkthatneedstobedone.While,uptillnow,

Marxisttheoriesoftimehavedonemuchtoincreaseourunderstandingofthe

developmentofabstractmachineclocktimeanditsrelationtotheregulationof

labour(Debord,Thompsonetc),thefullextentofMarxssocialtheoryhasnotyet

beendeveloped.

ThesigniicanceoftherelationshipbetweenMarxandEinsteinscosmologieshas

beenreferredtoelsewhere:

AlthoughMarxrejectedthemethodofclassicalscience,hecontinuedtouseits

metaphors,supplementedwithothersfromevolutionarybiology.Hadhewritten

Capitalonlyfortyyearslater,thetheoryofrelativitywouldhavebeentohandto

provideamoreadequatelanguageforhisthought,whichwasinadvanceofthe

scienceofhisday..UnfortunatelythelanguageofMarxismhasnottakenadvantage

ofthetheoryofrelativity,andforthemostparthasremainedNewtonian,spicedwiththeimageryofgeology(levelsandissures)(KayandMott,1982,p.77).

WhileMarxdidnothaveEinsteinstheoryofrelativitytoworkfromhewasmore

versedinatomictheorythanKayandMottrecognise.Fromhisveryearliest

writingMarxisconcernedwiththerelationbetweenphysicsandethicsas

expressedthroughaninvestigationintothesocialconsequencesofatomictheory.

MarxsdoctoraldissertationDifferenceBetweentheDemocriteanandEpicurean

PhilosophyofNatureinGeneral(1841)isbasedontheideathatknowledgeofthe

worldofatomsandmatterisascrucialtousasitwastotheancientphilosophers.

TheancientGreeksunderstoodthatacarefulenquiryintothematterandmotionofmeteorsfreedonebothfromafearofnonbeingandfromtheworldofmotionthat

appearedtobeoutsidethecomprehensionandcontrolofoneself.Froman

understandingofthewayinwhichtheuniversemovesMarxandtheancient

philosophersarguethat:


6of22 05/08/101


17/29

wecanexplainfearawayandfreeourselvesfromit,byshowingthecausesof

meteorsandotherthingsthatarealwayshappeningandcausetheutmostalarmto

otherpeople(DeGolyer,inMcCarthy,1992,p.125).

Or:happinessliesalsoinknowledgeofthemeteors(Marx,1841,p.68).

MarxindsthebasisforanewmaterialistphilosophyinthedifferencebetweentheatomictheoriesofEpicurusandDemocritus.ForDemocritusthedownwardmotion

ofatomsinastraightlinewastheonlycausationintheuniverse:deviationwas

precluded.However,Epicurusarguedthatatomsreacttoeachotherinamovement

thatcausesthemtoswerve.Theswerveisbasedontherepulsionbetweenone

atomandanother,bywhichtheatombecomesconsciousofitself.Inthiswaythe

atomasthefoundationofmatterbecomesmatteronlyintherelationofrepulsion

fromanotheratom.Thisswervingisaphysicalactwhichcarrieswithitcreative

aspectsofnondeterminationwhicharelostinDemocritussdeterminedworld.For

Epicurusitwasonlyininteractionthatmatterintheformofatomscancomefully

intobeingandtorealiseitsexistenceasthesourceandessenceofmatter.From

thismaterialexplanationonthemovementofatomsEpicurusextrapolatedonthe

existenceofahumanrealityofsocialjusticebasedontheconceptofcommunity.

ThusinEpicureanphilosophynotonlydoesMarxindawaytounifycontentand

form,buthealsodiscoversalinkbetweenthephysicalprincipleofaswerving

atomandthepropensityfortheintellectforselfconscioustheorising.Theelement

commontoboththeintellectandtheatomisfreedom(DeGloyerandBaronovitch,

1992):

Therefore,justastheatomisnothingbutthenaturalformofabstractindividualselfconsciousness,sosensuousnatureisonlytheobjectiied,empirical,individual

selfconsciousness,andthisissensuousness.Hencethesensearetheonlycriteria

inconcretenature,justasabstractreasonistheonlycriteriaintheworldof

atoms(fromMarxsDoctoralDissertationof1841,inDeGloyer,p.125).

Marxalsomakesthelinkbetweentheignoranceofastronomersandpolitical

economists.AccordingtoMarxsDissertationNotebooks,privateproperty

worshippedasanunbreakableprincipleandfoundationofsocietyandindividual

effortactuallycorrespondstothesamedeferencegivenbytheignorantin

Epicurussdaytothecourseoftheplanetsandstars.Epicurussoughttounderstandthemakeupandoperationoftheplanets,therebyabolishthemyths,andthusbring

tohumanbeingsintothecentral,selfconsciouspositiontheymerited.AsMarx

noted,EpicurussviewontheseissuesopposesGreekphilosophyasawhole,for

otherphilosophersworshipedthecelestialbodies.Yet,thesystemofthe

celestialbodiesis,Marxsaidtheirstnaveandnaturedeterminedexistenceof


7of22 05/08/101


18/29

truereasonandthatthesamepositionistakenbytheGreekselfconsciousnessin

thedomainofthemind.Itisthesolarsystemofthemind.Hence,theGreek

philosophersworshippedtheirownmindinthecelestialbodies(DeGolyer,1992,

p.121)And,byimplication,politicaleconomistsworshiptheirownintellectsinthe

movementofmoneyandcommodities.

It'scosmic

Marxssocialuniverseisbasedonvalue,whichheclearlyconsideredin

cosmologicalterms:

Allthephenomenaoftheuniverse,whetherproducedbythehandofmanorindeed

theuniversallawsofphysics,arenottobeconceivedofasactsofcreationbut

solelyasareorderingofmatter.Compositionandseparationaretheonlyelements

foundbythehumanmindwheneveritanalysisthenotionofreproduction;andsoit

iswiththereproductionofvalue(Marx,1987,footnote,p.133).

ThesubstanceofMarxssocialuniverseisnotsimplylabour,butabstractlabour,

understoodasaverydevelopedtotality:

AlthoughlabourappearstobeasimplecategoryNeverthelesswhenitis

economicallyconceivedinthissimplicity,labourisasmodernacategoryasare

therelationswhichcreatethissimplecategoryIndifferencetowardanyspeciic

kindoflabour,presupposesaverydevelopedtotalityofrealkindsoflabour,of

whichnosingleoneisanylongerpredominant(Marx,1858,p.103).

Marxdevelopsthisexpositionoftheverydevelopedtotalitythroughhislabour

theoryofvalue.ForMarx,valueisnotmerelyaneconomiccategory,butisthe

socialsubstanceoutofwhichcapitalistsocietyisderived:thesocialmatterfor

analysingthewayinwhichhumanactivitiesareincorporatedintocapitalistwork.

Valueisamultidimensionalieldofsocialenergy:asocialsubstancewitha

directionaldynamic(expansion)butnosocialidentity.Inordertoexistand

expanditmusttakeonanidentityorexistintheformofathing/commodity.Inthe

momentofitsbecomingathing(metamorphosis)inaseriesofthings

(transubstantiation)alltraceofthemovementortheprocessbywhichvalue

expandsthroughthethingislost.

Or,anotherwayofsayingthesamething,isthatthelogicofMarxssocialuniverse

istheproductionoftheexpansionofnonmateriality:asubstancewithoutaform,

orabstractionwhichmustexistasarealabstraction.Valueisnotthenanempty,

inert,neutralspacebutisthematterandtheantimatterofMarxssocialuniverse.

KarlMarxisdescribingasocialworldwheresubjectandobjectsarecompressed


8of22 05/08/101


19/29

intoeachotherinaspacethatceasestobesymmetrical.JustasEinsteinforced

physicstobreakwiththeconceptionoflinearmotionandtheseparationofenergy

(motion)frominertia(rest)anddeineaworldinwhichforcesactingatadistance

acrossspacefromoneobjecttoanother,forceobjectandspacetimewhereunited

inasingleconcreteformulation,whosestructuralprinciplewasdiscontinuity;so

too,withinMarx'sexpositionoftheproductionofsurplusvalue,thesubjectsand

objectsofpropertywerecompressedintoeachotherbyclassstruggle(Kayand

Mott,1982,pp.7578).Whatmakestheconceptandrealityofvaluesocosmicis

thatsocialsciencehasnowayofdealingwiththeconceptofvalueasunderstoodby

Marx.Valuedoesnotexistinthewayinwhichthingsareimaginedtoexistinthe

socialsciences.FacedwiththisproblemsocialscienceattemptstocontainMarxs

conceptbyreducingittothingsitcanunderstand:MarxisteconomicsorMarxist

sociology.Thisisastrueinsociologicaltheorisingabouttimeasitiswithregardto

anyotherproblematic.

InMarx'suniverse,exp ansionoccursthroughthelogicofcapitalistwork.Thislogicistheunavoidableprincipleofcapitalistsociety:theverydevelopedtotality.In

thisconjunction,humanlifeisforcedtotakeontheexistenceoflabourincapital:

humanlifeisforcedtoexistasitsopposite(asinNearyandTaylor,1998;

DinersteinandNeary,2000;Holloway,1995;Rikowski,1999and2000;and

Dinerstein,1998aand1998b).Basedonthisdynamiccontradictionthesocial

universeexpandsormovesthroughthestruggleinandagainstthelogicof

capitalistworkandtheattemptbythelogicofcapitalistworktoavoidthecrisis

thatisalwaysthreateningtooverwhelmit:acrisiswhichpresentsitselfasthe

possibilityofanotherformofhumanity.Or,toputitinEinsteinianterms:Marxis

offeringusawaybywhichwemightgetintothefuture.

E=MC.2orC-M-C/M-C-M

Einsteinhadaformulaforthedynamicandexplosiverelationshipbetweenmatter,

motionandenergy,expressedintheequatione=mc.2.E=energy,M=massandcis

thespeedoflight.Throughthis,Einsteinexpressestheenormouspowerofthe

universeandthewayinwhichitcanbecapturedinthesocialworldandputto

devastatinglynegativeandpositive(Chernobyl?)effect.Marxalsoprovidesa

formulaforthewayinwhichsocialenergyisconvertedintoenormouspower.Like

Einsteinthisequationdemonstratesthepositiveaspectsofenergy.ForMarx,initscurrentcondition,theworldhasbeenoverwhelmedbythewayinwhichthissocial

powerhasbeenputtouse:capitalismisthenegativesocialpower;but,thissocial

poweralsopossessestheprogressivepossibilitybywhichitmaybebroughtunder

humancontrolforthebeneitofhumanity:communism.Thisformula,describedby

Marxasthegeneraltheoryofcapital,isexpressedasCMC/MCM,inwhichM


9of22 05/08/101


20/29

representsmoneyandCisthecommodity.Theirstcircuit,CMCdescribesmoney

beingtransformedintocommodities:sellinginordertobuy.Thesubjectofthis

processisthebuyerwhoseneedsformthebasisforandaresatisiedbythe

transaction.However,thegeniusintheformulaisthatbysimplyreversingthe

polarityMCMMarxprovidesthebasisforthelogicofhissocialuniverse:money

isadvanceinorderthatitmaybecomemoremoney.Inthiscircuittheneedsofthe

subjectarecentralbutsubordinatetothedominantlogicoftheprocesswhichis

nowtheproductionofmoremoney.Thesubjectoftheprocessinnowmoneyitself

anditscontinuingexpansion.Thecirculationofmoneybecomesanendinitself:

thevalorisationofvaluetakesplacewithintheconstantlyrenewedmovement.The

movementofcapitalthereforeappearstobelimitless.

Itisimportanttorememberthatinthisformulabothmoneyandthecommodity

formfunctiononlyasdifferentmodesofexistenceofvalueitself,themoneyasits

generalmodeofexistence,thecommodityasitsparticularor,sotospeak,

disguisedmode.Itisconstantlychangingfromoneformintotheother,withoutbecominglostinthismovement;itthusbecomestransformedintoanautomatic

subject.Ifwepindownthespecificformofappearanceassumedinturnbyself

valorisingvalueinthecourseofitslife,wereachthefollowingelucidation:capital

ismoney,capitaliscommodities.Intruth,however,valueisherethesubjectofa

processinwhich,whileconstantlyassumingtheformofmoneyandcommodities:

itchangesitsownmagnitude,throwsoffsurplusvaluefromitselfconsideredas

originalvalueandthusvalorisesitselfindependently.Forthemovementinthe

courseofwhichitaddssurplusvalueisitsownmovement,itsvalorisationis

thereforeselfvalorisation.Byvirtueofitbeingvalueithasacquiredtheoccultabilitytoaddvaluetoitself.Itbringsforthlivingoffspring(Marx,1867,p.255).

Communisminvertsthepolarity/subjectivityandreplacesthelogicofsocial

expansionwherethesubjectisvalue,intheformofmoney,withthelogicofhuman

needandsubjectivity.

ThedominanceofthelogicofMCMmeansthatitsunderlyingprinciple:thelogic

ofcapitalistwork,hasexpandedtoincludeallaspectsofhumansociability.Value

hasbecomesthemultidimensionalmatrixwhichformsthesubstanceofcapitalist

socialrelations.Allaspectsofhumansociabilitybecomereallysubsumedbythelogicofcapitalistwork:

Theentiresocietybecomesoneenormousfactory,orrather,thefactoryspreads

throughoutthewholesociety.Inthissituation,productionissocialandallactivities

areproductive(Negri,1989,p.204).


0of22 05/08/101


21/29

Theexpansionofthelogicofcapitalistwork,andthestruggleoveritsimposition,

isextendedtothelevelofsociety:

thecapitalistformoflargescaleindustryreproducesthissamedivisionof

labourinastillmoremonstrousshapeinthefactoryproper,byconvertingthe

workerintoalivingappendageofthemachine;andeverywhereoutsidethe

factory...(Marx,1867,p.615ouremphasis).

Duringthemomentofrealsubsumptionoflabour,thecontradictioninherentinthe

struggleovertheproductionofcapitalistworkisintensiiedandsocialantagonism

isgeneratednotsimplyatthelevelofthefactorybutatthelevelofsociety.Or,

societyisantagonismraisedtothemostintolerablelevel.Capitalisnotsimplya

formofclassdominationbutaformofsociety:adevelopedtotality(Negri,1989,

p.67origimalemphasis).Classstrugglehasnotcometoanendbuthasbeen

displacedontoaterrain,whichpertainstohumantotality(Negri,1989,p.174):a

socialuniverse.

Time

InMarxssocialuniversetimedoesnotexistbeforetheevent,butemergesoutof

thecontradictorylogicofexpansionasboththemeasureofvalueandalsothe

rhythmorthebeatorthepulseortherateatwhichthisprocessoccurs.Timeisthe

temporaldimensionoftheexpansionofvalue.Marxsdevelopshisideasonthe

temporalaspectofcapitalistsocietythroughtheconceptandrealityofsocially

necessarytime.Acommodityhasvalueonlybecauseoftheabstractlabourthathas

materialisedinitwhichismeasuredbyquantityofthevalueformingsubstancethattheobjectcontains.Marxsgreatleapoutofclassicalpoliticaleconomywasto

recognisethatquantitywasadirectresultoftheamountoftimetakentoproduce

thearticle(thatwouldclearlycauseirreconcilabletheoreticalproblemsbasedon

reconcilingthedifferentspeedsatwhichpeoplework),but,rathertoseequantity

asasocialfractionorsocialaverageofthetotalamountoflabourpowerofthat

society:Althoughcomposedofinnumerableindividualunitseachunitisnota

discrete,disconnectedperiodoftimebutservesasasocialaverageofone

homogeneousmassoftheverydevelopedtotality:

Sociallynecessarylabourtimeisthenthelabourtimerequiredtoproduceanyusevalueundertheconditionofproductionnormalforagivensocietyandwiththe

averagedegreeofskillandintensityprevalentinthatsociety(Marx,1867,p.129).

WhatMarxisexplainingisthatwhiletheamountofvalueinsocietyremains

constantduringtheperiodwhenthisvalueisbeingproducedtheamountofsocially

necessarylabourtimeneededtoproducethecommodityisreduced.Asthe


1of22 05/08/101


22/29

pressureistoconstantlyexpandtheamountofsurplusvaluebeingextractedthere

iscorrespondingpressuretoreducetheamountofsociallynecessarylabourtime

intheproductionofcommoditiesWhatisbeingrecognisedisnotthesimply

quantityofusevalues:anincreaseinproductivitywillincreasethequantityof

things;but,rather,thefactthatthechangeinsociallynecessarylabourtime

changesthemagnitudeofvalueoftheindividualcommoditiesproducedratherthan

thetotalvalueproducedperunittime.

Whatisbeingrecognisedintheprocessisnottheamountofvalueproduced;but,

ratherthemagnitudeof(surplus)valuethatisrecoverable.Thisisnotthensimply

aquantitativeequation,butisaregulatorydeviceastowhatconstitutesthe

sociallyacceptedstandardfortheexpenditureofhumanenergy(labourpower).

Thisreductionredeter minesthenormativesociallabourunit,whatisbeing

definedisnotsimplythequantityofsociallabour,butthestandardofwhat

constitutessocialtime.Whiletheabstractmeasurementoftimeremainsthesame,

thisprocessissetwithintheframeworksofabstracttime:day,hours,minutes,seconds,thereisachangeinthenormativesociallabourhour.

Theeffectofthisrelationisbothdynamicanddirectionalimposingalawlike

qualityindependentofhumanwill.Sociallynecessarylabourtimebecomesthe

measureofthespeedofhumanactivity.Althoughthisspeedworksatdifferent

ratesofvelocity,withatendencyforthatvelocitytoaccelerate:speedisrelative,it

isalsothecasethatinthemomentwhensociallynecessarylabourtimeissocially

recognised:atthemomentatwhichcommoditiesareexchanged,thisisregardedas

anabsolutemeasureatthatmomentintime.Thisformulationoftherelation

betweentherelativeandtheabsoluteisagainEinsteinianinitsconceptualisation.AlthoughEinsteinstheoryisentitledthetheoryofrelativityanimportantaspect

ofthetheoryiswhatisconstantabouttheuniverse.ForEinstein,theoneconstant

wasthespeedoflightandthatwasthemeasureagainstwhichallothermovement

ismeasured.InthesocialworldMarxalsoprovidesuswithasocialmeasure:

sociallynecessarylabourtime:thespeedoflife.

LinktoPartTwo:

SpeedofLifePartTwo

PrintFriendlyPrintFriendlywithlinks

ReadabilityAnArc90LaboratoryExperimenthttp://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readabilityFollowuson

Twitter

FollowusonTwitter


2of22 05/08/101


23/29

FlowofIdeas:articles

Gravity

InanextremelyinsightfulaccountofthisprocessPostone(1994)explainsthatas

thelevelsofproductivitydonotimpingeonthetotalvalueproduced,thesocial

labourunitbecomesinPostone'swords,denser,eventhoughthisdensityisnot

manifestinthesphereofabstracttemporality.Thesimilaritybetweenthisaccount

ofthewayinwhichdenseobjectseffectotherobjectsintheirvicinityand

Einsteinstheoryofgravityisstriking(cf.Calder,1979).However,Postonedoesnot

maketheconnection.HechoosestoexaminethelimitationsofNewton'stheoryof

timeandspacewhensetalongsidethetheoryoftimeandspacehehasfoundin

Marxsworkintermsoftheproblemsintherelationshipbetweenabstractand

historicaltime

Thattheabstracttimeframeremainsconstantdespitebeingredetermined

substantivelyisanapparentparadoxthatIhavenoted.Thisparadoxcannotbe

resolvedwithintheframeworkofabstractNewtoniantime.Ratheritimplies

anothersortoftimeasasuperordinatedframeorreference.Aswehaveseen,the

processwherebytheconstanthourbecomesdenserthatis,thesubstantive

changeeffectedbytheusevaluedimensionremainsnonmanifestintermsofthe

abstracttemporalframeofvalue.Itcanhoweverbeexpressedinothertemporal

terms,withreferencetoaformofconcretetemporality(Postone,1996,p.292).

AlthoughPostonerecoversthetheoreticalbasisofMarxssocialuniversehedoes

notexpandthetheorybeyondMarxsownformulationaboutthepossibilitiesfor

creatinganewsocialdivisionoftimebasedonhumanneeds:notthemachinetime

ofcapital,butrealtime(Marx,1858).Marxhasgoodreasonfornotdevelopinghis

theoryoftimebeyondalternativeformsofconcretetime:althoughMarxwas

theorisingthemovementofmatteraheadofhistimehewaslivinginNewtons

world.Knowingwhatwenowknowabouttherelationoftimeandspacefrom

Einsteinwenolongerhavethesameexcuse.

EinsteinandMarx

ThepointofthispaperhasnotbeentocollapseMarxandEinsteinintoeachother.

Rather,itistoarguethatwhileEinsteinhasbeenacclaimedforhisworkin

theoreticalphysicsMarx'ssocialtheoryhasbeeneitherlargelyignoredor

misrepresented.Thisisthegreatestintellectualavoidanceofalltime.Atavery


of7 05/08/101


24/29

generallevelbothMarxandEinsteindogreatdamagetocommonsensenotionsof

timeandspaceandthroughtheirreconstructionofthewayinwhichthe

relationshipbetweenmassandenergyisconstructedtheybothdidmuchmore

thanthat:

Einsteinsparadigmisregardedasprovidingawayintothefuture:throughtime

travel.Marxsworkonmaterialityandmotionalsoprovidesawayintothefuture,butinawaythatismoreprofoundthanEinsteinsformulations.Marxswork

allowsustothinknotsimplyintermsoftravelintime,butratherthecreationofa

newformoftime,anewformofsociety:thefuture.

IfEinsteinprovidedthephysics:E=MC.2thatallowedfortheexistenceofthe

nuclearbombthenMarx,throughhisformulaCMC/MCM,providesthecritical

socialtheoryforwhythebombexists(:astheimpositionofcapitalistwork:the

epitomeofthelogicoftheexpansionofabstraction:theterrorofimmaterialityand

vaporisationofeverything)andwhyitmustbedestroyed.

Notes:

[1]SpeedxConnectivityxIntangibles=BLUR.Speed:everyaspectofbusinessand

theconnectedorganizationoperatesandchangesinrealtime.Connectivity:

everythingisbecomingelectronicallyconnectedtoeverythingelseproducts,

people,companies,countries,everything.Intangibles:everyofferhasboth

tangibleandintangibleeconomicvalue.Theintangibleisgrowingfaster.BLUR:

Thenewworldinwhichyouwillcometoliveandwork(DavisandMeyer,1998,

p.5).

[2]DavisandMeyerarguethereishopethatthedisruptiveandrevolutionising

forcesofBLURcanbetamed.For:Harnessandleveragethem,andyoucanenter

theworldofBLUR,movetoitscadenceandonceagainsetheworldclearly.(p.7).

Leadbeater(1999)alsoviewsour(individualandsocial)capacitytomanipulate

intangibles(principallyknowledgeandinformation)intheemergingKnowledge

Economyasthekeytosuccess(forindividuals,companies,nations).However,he

problematisesourcollectiveandindividualcapacitiesforcontrollingthemforthe

goalsofsocialequalityandindividualwellbeing,andadvocatesareconiguration

ofwelfareassupportforrisktakingknowledgeentrepreneursinaknowledgebasedsociety.

[3]TimLuke(1998)developedhisconceptofthespeedoflifeprincipallythrough

theworkofVirilio.

[4]AsRikowski(1999)notes:thisisaproblemcommontotheoriesthatposit


of7 05/08/101


25/29

runawaytechnologyoracyborgfuture.Rikowskiindicateshowbothformsof

developmentcanbeprovidedwithanexplanatorydynamicthroughviewingthem

asanunfoldingoftherelativeformofsurplusvalueproduction.

[5]Atthispoint,GiddensantiMarxistprejudicesgetinthewayofhisabilityto

pursueapromisinglineofenquiry.Hiseclecticandunsystematicapproachto

theorisingingeneralisdiscussedinRikowski(2000).InTheThirdWay(Giddens,1998),heannouncestheinaldiscreditingofMarxism(p.vii)andthedeathof

socialism(p.3)butGiddenshadforestalledhisownpossibilitiesfordevelopment

ofMarxistideasandconceptsmuchearlier(seeRikowski,2000).

[6]Recentresearchhasindicatedthattimedoesinfactseemtoflowmorequickly

aspeoplegetolder(Burkeman,1999).

[7]Falk(1998)notesthatthelatestatomicclocksactuallykeepbettertimethan

theplanetsthemselves.Atomicclockshavedenaturalisedtimeonapractical

basis.Theyareaccuratetoonenanosecond(onebillionthofasecond)perday:or

aroundonesecondin3millionyears.

[8]Aristotle,theSceptics,Epicureans,Stoics,St.Augustine,Newton,Locke,Leibniz,

Spinoza,Kant,Hegel,Nietzsche,McTaggartandEinsteinallfiguringprominently.

[9]SeeNegri(1996,pp.157),wherehearguesthatMarxsdefinitionoftheformof

valueinCapitalonlypertainstothe18481914period.

References

Adam,B.(1991)Time&SocialTheory(Cambridge:PolityPress).

Adam,B.(1995)Timewatch:TheSocialAnalysisofTime(Cambridge:PolityPress).

Agger,B.(1989)FastCapitalism:ACriticalTheoryofSignificance(Urbana:

UniversityofIllinoisPress).

Alliez,E.(1996)CapitalTimes:TalesfromtheConquestofTime,Trans.G.VanDen

Abbeele,TheoryOutofBounds,Volume6(Minneapolis&London:Universityof

MinneapolisPress).

Bayley,S.(1999)Thespeedoflife,NewStatesman,25thOctober1999,p.43.

Brand,S.(1999)TheClockoftheLongNow:TimeandResponsibility(London:Weidenfield&Nicholson).

Bonefeld,W.(1995)CapitalasSubjectandtheExistenceofLabour,in:W.Bonefeld,

R.Gunn,J.Holloway&K.Psychopedis(eds)OpenMarxism:DialecticsandHistory

(London:PlutoPress).

Burkeman,O.(1999)Timeandemotion,TheGuardian(Health),21stDecember

1999,p.10.


of7 05/08/101


26/29

Calder,N.(1979)Einstein'sUniverse(Harmondsworth:Penguin).

Clarke,S.(1981)Marx,MarginalismandModernSociology(London:Macmillan).

Clarke,S.(1988)Keynesianism,MonetarismandtheCrisisoftheState(Aldershot&

Vermont:EdwardElgar).

Chown,M.(2000)Backwardstothefuture,NewScientist,No.2224,5thFebruary,

pp.2630.

Cleaver,H.(1999)WorkisstilltheCentralIssue.UnpublishedPapertoTheLabour

DebateConference,UniversityofWarwick,February1999.

Davis,S.&Meyer,C.(1999)BLUR:thespeedofchangeintheconnectedeconomy

(Oxford:CapstonePublishingLimited).

DeGolyer,M.(1992)TheMarxianMatrix,in:G.McCarthy(ed.)MarxandAristotle

(Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield).

DeGolyer,M.&Baranovitch,L.(1992)KarlMarxandGreekPhilosophy,in:G.

McCarthy(ed.)MarxandAristotle(Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield).

Dinerstein,A.(1998a)MarxismandSubjectivity:searchingfortheMarvellous

(PreludetoaMarxistTheoryofAction),CommonSense,No.22.Dinerstein,A.(1998b)Roadblocks:UnemploymentandNewFormsofWorker

ResistanceinArgentina.WorkingPaperfortheCentreforComparativeLabour

Studies,UniversityofWarwick.

Dinerstein,A.&Neary,M.(2000)CapitalMelts:ClassStruggleandtheCommunist

Manifesto,TheSocialTheoryCentreJournal,UniversityofWarwick.

Dixon,P.(1999)Futurewise:sixfacesofglobalchange(London:HarperCollins

Publishers).

Falk,D.(1998)Aheadofthetimes,TheIndependentonSunday(TheSunday

Review),27thDecember,1998,pp.3032.

Giddens,A.(1979)CentralProblemsinSocialTheory:Action,StructureandContradictioninSocialAnalysis(London:Macmillan).

Giddens,A.(1984)TheConstitutionofSociety:OutlineofaTheoryofStructuration

(Cambridge:PolityPress).

Giddens,A.(1987)Timeandsocialorganisation,in:SocialTheoryandModern

Sociology(Cambridge:PolityPress).

Giddens,A.(1991)ModernityandSelfIdentity:SelfandSocietyintheLateModern

Age(Cambridge:PolityPress).

Giddens,A.(1998)TheThirdWay:TheRenewalofSocialDemocracy(Cambridge:

PolityPress).Giddens,A.(1999)RunawayWorld:howglobalisationisshapingourlives(London:

ProfileBooks).

Gleick,J.(1999)Faster:TheAccelerationOfJustAboutEverything(London:Little,

Brown&Company).

Gunn,R.(1994)MarxismandContradiction,CommonSense,No.15.

Harvey,D.(1989)TheConditionofPostmodernity:AnEnquiryintotheOriginsof


of7 05/08/101


27/29

CulturalChange(Oxford&Massachusetts:Blackwell).

Hoffman,B.&Dukas,H.(1986)Einstein(London:Paladin).

Holloway,J.(1995)FromScreamofRefusaltoScreamofPower:theCentralityof

Work,in:W.Bonefeld,R.Gunn,J.Holloway&K.Psychopedis(eds)OpenMarxism:

Volume3EmancipatingMarx(London:PlutoPress).

Holloway,J.&Picciotto,S.(1991)Capital,CrisisandtheState,in:S.Clarke(ed)The

StateDebate(London:Macmillan).

Imperato,G.(2000)TheMoneyValueofTime,FastCompany,issue31,January

February2000,p.40.

Kay,G.&Mott,J.(1982)PoliticalOrderandtheLawofLabour(London:Macmillan).

Layshon,A.&Thrift,N.(1997)Money/Space:GeographiesofMonetary

Transformation(London:Routledge).

Leadbeater,C.(1999)LivingonThinAir:theneweconomy(London:Viking).

Lukacher,N.(1998)TimeFetishes:TheSecretHistoryofEternalRecurrence

(Durham&London:DukeUniversityPress).

Luke,T.(1998)MovingattheSpeedofLife?ACulturalKinematicsofTelematicTimesandCorporateValues,in:S.Lash,A.Quicke&R.Roberts(eds)TimeandValue

(Oxford:BlackwellPublishersLtd).

Luttwak,E.(1999)TurboCapitalism:WinnersandLosersintheGlobalEconomy

(London:HarperPerennial).

Martin,R.(1999)(ed)MoneyandtheSpaceEconomy(Chichester:JohnWiley&

Sons).

Marx,K.(1841)[1975]DifferencebetweentheDemocriteanandEpicurean

PhilosophyofNature(DoctoralDissertation),KarlMarxandFrederickEngels:

CollectedWorks,Volume1Marx:18351843(London:Lawrence&Wishart).

Marx,K.(1858)[1973]Grundrisse:FoundationsoftheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy(RoughDraft),Trans.M.Nicolaus(Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks).

Marx,K.(1867)[1976]Capital:ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomyVolume1,Trans.B.

Fowkes(Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks).

Matthews,R.(1999)Doweallhaveanastydoseofhurrysickness?TheExpress,

14thOctober1999,pp.4445.

Moullier,Y.(1989)IntroductiontoA.Negri'sThePoliticsofSubversion(Cambridge:

Polity).

Neary,M.(1999)(ed)GlobalHumanisation:StudiesintheManufactureofLabour

(London&NewYork:Cassell).Neary,M.(2000)HyudaiMotors,1998:TheAnatomyofaStrikeFromthe

WorkplaceIntotheFuture,Capital&Class,no.70(Spring),pp.19.

Neary,M.&Taylor,G.(1998)MoneyandtheHumanCondition(London&NewYork:

Macmillan).

Negri,A.(1989)ThePoliticsofSubversion:AManifestofortheTwentyfirst

Century,Trans.J.Newell(Cambridge&Massachusetts:PolityPress).


of7 05/08/101


28/29

Negri,A.(1996)TwentyThesesonMarx:InterpretationoftheClassSituation

Today,in:S.Makdisi,C.Casarino&R.Karl(Eds.)MarxismBeyondMarx(London:

Routledge).

Negri,A.&Hardt,M.(1994)LaborofDionysus:ACritiqueoftheStateForm,Theory

OutofBounds,Volume4(Minneapolis&London:UniversityofMinneapolisPress).

Neustadter,R.(1992)BeattheClock:Themid20thcenturyprotestagainstthe

reificationoftime,Time&Society,Vol.1No.3,pp.379398.

Novikov,I.(1998)TheRiverofTime(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).

Offe,C.(1985)NewSocialMovements:ChallengingtheBoundariesofInstitutional

Politics,SocialResearch,Vol.52No.4.

Perniola,M.(1995)Enigmas:theEgyptianMomentinSocietyandArt,Trans.C.

Woodall(London:Verso).

Postone,M.(1996)Time,LaborandSocialDomination:Areinterpretationof

Marxscriticaltheory(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress).

Reeves,R.(1999)Themadrushtosavetime,TheObserver,3rdOctober1999,p.17.

Rikowski,G.(1999)Education,CapitalandtheTranshuman,in:D.Hill,P.McLaren,M.Cole&G.Rikowski(Eds.)PostmodernisminEducationalTheory:Educationand

thePoliticsofHumanResistance(London:theTufnellPress).

Rikowski,G.(2000)TheWhichBlairProject: Giddens,EducationandtheThirdWay,

forthcomingin:Forumforpromotingcomprehensiveeducation.

Strathern,P.(1997)EinsteinandRelativity(London:Arrow).

Taylor,G.(1999)LabourandSubjectivity:RethinkingtheLimitsofWorkingClass

Consciousness.UnpublishedPapertoTheLabourDebateConference,Universityof

Warwick,February1999.

Turetzky,P.(1998)Time(London:Routledge).

Virilio,P.(1995)TheArtoftheMotor,Trans.J.Rose(UniversityofMinnesotaPress:Minneapolis&London).

Waugh,A.(1999)Time:frommicrosecondstomillenniaasearchfortheright

time(London:HeadlineBooks).

ThispaperwasselectedbytheBritishSociologicalAssociationPublications

Committeefromthe2000AnnualConferencepapersforinclusioninVolume62of

ExplorationinSociology.Itfinallyappearedasthefollowing:

Neary,M.&Rikowski,G.(2002)TimeandSpeedintheSocialUniverseofCapital,

in:G.CrowandS.Heath(Eds.) SocialConceptionsofTime:StructureandProcessin

WorkandEverydayLife,ExplorationsinSociology62,BritishSociological

Association(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan).

Copyright,MichaelNearyandGlennRikowski,13thMay2006


of7 05/08/101


29/29

LinkbacktoPartOne:

SpeedofLifePartOne

PrintFriendlyPrintFriendlywithlinks

ReadabilityAnArc90LaboratoryExperimenthttp://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readabilityFollowuson

TwitterFollowusonTwitter


the speed of life

Documents