 &   The natural world In societies based around agriculture, hunting, and other pursuits that involve human interaction with the natural world, time discipline is a matter governed by astronomical and biological factors. Specific times of day or seasons of the year are defined by reference to these factors, and measured, to the extent that they need measuring, by observation. Different peoples' needs with respect to these things mean sharply differing cultural perceptions of time. For example, it surprises many non-Muslims that the Islamic calendar is entirely lunar and makes no reference at all to the seasons; the desert-dwelling Arabs who devised it were nomads rather than agriculturalists, and a calendar that made no reference to the seasons was no inconvenience for most of them. The isochronous clock changed lives. Appointments are rarely "within the hour," but at quarter hours (and being five minutes late is often considered being tardy). People often eat, drink, sleep, and even go to the bathroom in adherence to some time-dependent schedule. Other views of time discipline While Thompson's theory of industrial time-discipline has dominated the field for more than 40 years, critics of his work have emerged. Paul Glennie and Nigel Thrift posit an alternative perspective on the development of time-consciousness in "Reworking E. P. Thompson's 'Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism'" (1996).Glennie, Paul, and Nigel Thrift. "Reworking EP Thompson's Time, work-discipline and industrial capitalism'." Time%DIFDELCMD < & %%% Society 5, no. 3 (1996): 275-299 According to Glennie and Thrift, Thompson and subsequent theorists on modern time competence in England have theorized that industrial work-discipline centered on the clock is responsible for spreading a unitary concept of time rooted in materialist realities. In contrast, Glennie and Thrift explore the role of symbolic, qualitative, and multiple time-senses in the West. Different kinds of work and multiple means of measuring time problematize the centrality of factory work and the clock. Generally, they argue that time-discipline was evident before the spread of industrialization and that it did not trigger a significant change in time-sense. Because it rests on the argument that disparate, spatial temporalities can not be unified, critics have argued that their analysis seems incomplete.Corfield, Penelope J. "Paul Glennie, Nigel Thrift. Shaping the Day: A History of Timekeeping in England and Wales, 1300–1800. New York: Oxford University Press. 2009. Pp. xiv, 456. $70.00." The American Historical Review 115, no. 2 (2010): 603-604. In short, they offer poignant critiques of the dominant theory without positing a stronger theory in its place. Michael J. Sauter argues that Thompson's approach to time discipline is "gendered and Eurocentric". Time discipline did not arise because of the Industrial Revolution, but had been a phenomenon since the Middle Ages as the government, religion, and economics played larger roles in day-to-day life. In Sauter's article "Clockwaters and Stargazers: Time Discipline in Early Modern Berlin", he argues that time discipline came from the streets, and was part of the rise of "local knowledge" as public clocks were used by public event planners. People began to learn where clocks were located and which social groups used which ones. Furthermore, Sauter argues that time discipline is not "externally imposed" on people, but "a standard that is determined by people with specialized knowledge and skills". Prior to the rise of mechanical timekeeping, clocks were based on the easily accessed sun, and after 1800 precise timekeeping again returned to the Earth's position in relationship to the stars, as measured by scientists using specialized instruments.Sauter, Michael J. (June 2007). "Clockwatchers and Stargazers: Time Discipline in Early Modern Berlin". American Historical Review. 112 (3): 685.
Other views of time discipline While Thompson's theory of industrial time-discipline has dominated the field for more than 40 years, critics of his work have emerged. Paul Glennie and Nigel Thrift posit an alternative perspective on the development of time-consciousness in "Reworking E. P. Thompson's 'Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism'" (1996).Glennie, Paul, and Nigel Thrift. "Reworking EP Thompson's Time, work-discipline and industrial capitalism'." Time& Society 5, no. 3 (1996): 275-299 According to Glennie and Thrift, Thompson and subsequent theorists on modern time competence in England have theorized that industrial work-discipline centered on the clock is responsible for spreading a unitary concept of time rooted in materialist realities. In contrast, Glennie and Thrift explore the role of symbolic, qualitative, and multiple time-senses in the West. Different kinds of work and multiple means of measuring time problematize the centrality of factory work and the clock. Generally, they argue that time-discipline was evident before the spread of industrialization and that it did not trigger a significant change in time-sense. Because it rests on the argument that disparate, spatial temporalities can not be unified, critics have argued that their analysis seems incomplete.Corfield, Penelope J. "Paul Glennie, Nigel Thrift. Shaping the Day: A History of Timekeeping in England and Wales, 1300–1800. New York: Oxford University Press. 2009. Pp. xiv, 456. $70.00." The American Historical Review 115, no. 2 (2010): 603-604. In short, they offer poignant critiques of the dominant theory without positing a stronger theory in its place. Michael J. Sauter argues that Thompson's approach to time discipline is "gendered and Eurocentric". Time discipline did not arise because of the Industrial Revolution, but had been a phenomenon since the Middle Ages as the government, religion, and economics played larger roles in day-to-day life. In Sauter's article "Clockwaters and Stargazers: Time Discipline in Early Modern Berlin", he argues that time discipline came from the streets, and was part of the rise of "local knowledge" as public clocks were used by public event planners. People began to learn where clocks were located and which social groups used which ones. Furthermore, Sauter argues that time discipline is not "externally imposed" on people, but "a standard that is determined by people with specialized knowledge and skills". Prior to the rise of mechanical timekeeping, clocks were based on the easily accessed sun, and after 1800 precise timekeeping again returned to the Earth's position in relationship to the stars, as measured by scientists using specialized instruments.Sauter, Michael J. (June 2007). "Clockwatchers and Stargazers: Time Discipline in Early Modern Berlin". American Historical Review. 112 (3): 685. The natural world In societies based around agriculture, hunting, and other pursuits that involve human interaction with the natural world, time discipline is a matter governed by astronomical and biological factors. Specific times of day or seasons of the year are defined by reference to these factors, and measured, to the extent that they need measuring, by observation. Different peoples' needs with respect to these things mean sharply differing cultural perceptions of time. For example, it surprises many non-Muslims that the Islamic calendar is entirely lunar and makes no reference at all to the seasons; the desert-dwelling Arabs who devised it were nomads rather than agriculturalists, and a calendar that made no reference to the seasons was no inconvenience for most of them. The isochronous clock changed lives. Appointments are rarely "within the hour," but at quarter hours (and being five minutes late is often considered being tardy). People often eat, drink, sleep, and even go to the bathroom in adherence to some time-dependent schedule. %DIFDELCMD < & %%% 
A
Other views of time discipline While Thompson's theory of industrial time-discipline has dominated the field for more than 40 years, critics of his work have emerged.
A
Paul Glennie and Nigel Thrift posit an alternative perspective on the development of time-consciousness in "Reworking E. P. Thompson's 'Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism'" (1996).Glennie, Paul, and Nigel Thrift. "Reworking EP Thompson's Time, work-discipline and industrial capitalism'." Time
A
Society 5, no. 3 (1996): 275-299 According to Glennie and Thrift, Thompson and subsequent theorists on modern time competence in England have theorized that industrial work-discipline centered on the clock is responsible for spreading a unitary concept of time rooted in materialist realities. In contrast, Glennie and Thrift explore the role of symbolic, qualitative, and multiple time-senses in the West. Different kinds of work and multiple means of measuring time problematize the centrality of factory work and the clock. Generally, they argue that time-discipline was evident before the spread of industrialization and that it did not trigger a significant change in time-sense. Because it rests on the argument that disparate, spatial temporalities can not be unified, critics have argued that their analysis seems incomplete.Corfield, Penelope J. "Paul Glennie, Nigel Thrift. Shaping the Day: A History of Timekeeping in England and Wales, 1300–1800. New York: Oxford University Press. 2009. Pp. xiv, 456. $70.00." The American Historical Review 115, no. 2 (2010): 603-604. In short, they offer poignant critiques of the dominant theory without positing a stronger theory in its place.
A
Michael J. Sauter argues that Thompson's approach to time discipline is "gendered and Eurocentric". Time discipline did not arise because of the Industrial Revolution, but had been a phenomenon since the Middle Ages as the government, religion, and economics played larger roles in day-to-day life. In Sauter's article "Clockwaters and Stargazers: Time Discipline in Early Modern Berlin", he argues that time discipline came from the streets, and was part of the rise of "local knowledge" as public clocks were used by public event planners. People began to learn where clocks were located and which social groups used which ones. Furthermore, Sauter argues that time discipline is not "externally imposed" on people, but "a standard that is determined by people with specialized knowledge and skills". Prior to the rise of mechanical timekeeping, clocks were based on the easily accessed sun, and after 1800 precise timekeeping again returned to the Earth's position in relationship to the stars, as measured by scientists using specialized instruments.Sauter, Michael J. (June 2007). "Clockwatchers and Stargazers: Time Discipline in Early Modern Berlin". American Historical Review. 112 (3): 685.
D
Other views of time discipline While Thompson's theory of industrial time-discipline has dominated the field for more than 40 years, critics of his work have emerged.
D
Paul Glennie and Nigel Thrift posit an alternative perspective on the development of time-consciousness in "Reworking E. P. Thompson's 'Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism'" (1996).Glennie, Paul, and Nigel Thrift. "Reworking EP Thompson's Time, work-discipline and industrial capitalism'." Time
D
Society 5, no. 3 (1996): 275-299 According to Glennie and Thrift, Thompson and subsequent theorists on modern time competence in England have theorized that industrial work-discipline centered on the clock is responsible for spreading a unitary concept of time rooted in materialist realities. In contrast, Glennie and Thrift explore the role of symbolic, qualitative, and multiple time-senses in the West. Different kinds of work and multiple means of measuring time problematize the centrality of factory work and the clock. Generally, they argue that time-discipline was evident before the spread of industrialization and that it did not trigger a significant change in time-sense. Because it rests on the argument that disparate, spatial temporalities can not be unified, critics have argued that their analysis seems incomplete.Corfield, Penelope J. "Paul Glennie, Nigel Thrift. Shaping the Day: A History of Timekeeping in England and Wales, 1300–1800. New York: Oxford University Press. 2009. Pp. xiv, 456. $70.00." The American Historical Review 115, no. 2 (2010): 603-604. In short, they offer poignant critiques of the dominant theory without positing a stronger theory in its place.
D
Michael J. Sauter argues that Thompson's approach to time discipline is "gendered and Eurocentric". Time discipline did not arise because of the Industrial Revolution, but had been a phenomenon since the Middle Ages as the government, religion, and economics played larger roles in day-to-day life. In Sauter's article "Clockwaters and Stargazers: Time Discipline in Early Modern Berlin", he argues that time discipline came from the streets, and was part of the rise of "local knowledge" as public clocks were used by public event planners. People began to learn where clocks were located and which social groups used which ones. Furthermore, Sauter argues that time discipline is not "externally imposed" on people, but "a standard that is determined by people with specialized knowledge and skills". Prior to the rise of mechanical timekeeping, clocks were based on the easily accessed sun, and after 1800 precise timekeeping again returned to the Earth's position in relationship to the stars, as measured by scientists using specialized instruments.Sauter, Michael J. (June 2007). "Clockwatchers and Stargazers: Time Discipline in Early Modern Berlin". American Historical Review. 112 (3): 685.