Social theory gap: a quest for temporal regimes
Since social sciences, cultural studies and humanities are deeply concerned with understanding temporality and its connections with historic-political dimensions, they have produced macro-theoretical arguments to explain what has happened with temporality and its order(s) within the onset of general patterns, particularly regarding modern and contemporary times. In that sense, as touched upon in the introduction to this book, Paul Virilio (1986) and Hartmut Rosa (2013) have written extensively about long tendencies towards the acceleration and high speed of social process, whereas Anthony Giddens (1981) and David Harvey (1989) suggest the concept of âspace-time compressionâ to explain what happens to structures and experiences in the modern world. On the other hand, theorists such as Doreen Massey (1994), Reinhart Koselleck (2004), Sarah Sharma (2014) and François Hartog (2015) have emphasised the diversity and plurality of simultaneous times in the contemporary world, providing an overview of the modern experience but from an angle that captures the variability of this experience under the concept of regime of historicity (Hartog) or âcontemporaneousness of the non-contemporaneousâ (Bloch 1973; Koselleck 2004). In the same vein comes Johannes Fabianâs germinal work which uses anthropological perspectives to indicate different areas that highlight how time is used to construct borders and cultural differences (such as advanced vs delayed societies, developed vs underdeveloped, evolved vs primitive ones). In this framework, empirical research on practices, uses and conceptions about time can also be located, which are structured according to social class, biography and gender, among many others (OâRand and Ellis 1974; Phoenix et al. 2007; Hagqvist et al. 2019). In synthesis, for these approaches, there is not just one temporal pattern (high-speed, acceleration or spaceâtime compression) but rather several temporalities coming from the constitutive fragmentation and diversity of the social.
Therefore, taking into account some of the most influential analysis on time, we have two major opposed theses about temporality: (1) time is constituted by general tendencies from economy and politics to one standardised clock-oriented conception that supports the process of acceleration and high-speed societies â constituting in turn a macro-theoretical approach that methodologically conceives time as one-dimensional and homogeneous tendency. And, conversely, (2) we observe descriptions that support a conception of time as multiple, highlighting its variability and diversity that, in turn, demands a more complex understanding of socio-historical temporal concepts and their characteristics. During the process of this research, digging through almost endless bibliographic resources, as well as traditions and authors, I realised that no theoretical perspective has properly dealt with this difference, enabling insufficient tools for grasping the complexity of how temporal perspectives work in current societies.
Within this framework, the lack of dialogue between these two approaches-explanations1 becomes a matter of interest, limiting the understanding of social theory on contemporary times as a paradoxical phenomenon that deserves to be clarified. More precisely, this apparent contradiction leads us to ask if both homogenisation (macro-theoretical and general tendencies) and heterogenisation (simultaneity and no-synchronicity of multiple times) are two faces of the very same coin or, conversely, if they respond to different phenomena. In order to clarify this, I propose to use the notion of temporal regimes for a better understanding of socio-political consequences upon temporal phenomena as well as their frictions, complementarities and parallel manifestations. In other words, multi-dimensional and sub-altern temporal dynamics, as well as stable and dominant ones, need to be put in a framework that can provide explanations about their coexistence. Process through which, on the one hand, old spatio-temporal barriers are narrowed by technical mechanisms such as internet, flights, and cars, and, on the other hand, multicultural encounters for decentralised, pluriversal and diversified times including cultural rhythms, non-standardised clock and sacred times deserve further investigation in order to grasp their main characteristics, interconnections and frictions. Considering this, I provide a notion of temporal regimes that allows to address historical ideas about linearity or circularity; synchrony or diachrony; progressive, evolutive and regressive process; as well as scientific measures of time and its objectivity when all of them imply specific contingent modes of social shape. In all these cases, several epistemologies, knowledges, politics and philosophical conceptions involve temporal perspectives by using temporal dimensions to explain, justify and legitimise social orders. This means that general temporal structures coexist with temporal forms that are not incorporated into them. Put in other words, temporal categories are moulded by the historical materialities over which they work, to fence them in the very possibilities of material rhythms or dynamisms of society.
To approximate what might be nominated as the previously mentioned temporal regimes, the theoretical framework analysis here is subdivided as follows: (1) the relevance of the notion regime, (2) the specificities of temporal regimes and (3) the identification of some of the main characteristics present in every temporal regime.
Why regime?
As we have seen, the gap among the temporal analysis in social and cultural studies lies in the lack of a holistic understanding of general-global temporal logics and the more particular and local specifications. Regarding the latter, the utility of the term regime resides in two main conditions at first glance. As aforementioned in the introduction, firstly, regime is related to particular repetitive and stable conditions which constitute unity. This unity is even better recognised as homogeneity in which it is possible to find regular and reiterative patterns across which time plays a major role. For instance, regularities as linear conceptions of time, alongside evolutionary perspectives and secularised concepts in history, settle conditions for a temporal regime in terms of progress. In another sense, perspectives about possible futures and uncertain human incidence on the fate of history make conceivable a temporal regime in terms of utopia. The open future as a horizon for another society is combined into several political, religious and economic forms. All of them contribute to shape the discussion on the speed of facilitating historical achievements in terms of acceleration. I develop the three notions of progress, utopia and acceleration in more detail in Chapter 4.
Subsequently, the definition of regime has the potential for considering more than one pattern of regularity. In this sense, it is possible to think simultaneously of various regimes interacting with each other, as well as the struggles in-between and inside of them. By doing this, we can identify patterns of acceleration coexisting with âslow foodâ movements; a measurable-standardised global time in parallel with sacred, mystic and non-rational temporal ideas; futurist perspectives with presentist or romantic paths; urban vs rural paces; as well as differentiations by gender, age or even employment. Then, by using a notion of âtemporal regimesâ, it is possible to have an overview of several phenomena that are usually considered isolated but can have deep connections across several fields. A temporal regime will be a way to put dimensions in a comprehensive perspective that often come from different and also overlapping fields: from sciences to religion, politics to history or economics to philosophy. This is the case when the study of a concept of acceleration reveals connections with historic and political concepts such as utopia and progress or how a standardised clock-time is related to implications on measures for everyday-working time distribution, as well as education cycles and pension systems regarding age or life expectancy. The list could continue quite extensively: relations between non-sacred times and liberal-progressive politics, advanced vs delayed categories of societies/communities and assumptions of a philosophy of history in terms of evolutionism or progress. Since the complexity of the associations between phenomena which come from diverse sources, involving epistemologies and philosophies but also historic and political struggles, I consider the term gravitating to grasp these temporalities. Then, the justification of the use of the word regimes arises in the first place due to its double condition, both descriptive and politico-normative, of a defined order that involves power relations and legitimations. The idea of regime envelops an epistemic dimension by which a state of art is identified and named, as well as a normative order that results from dominances and political decisions. This work plans to face all these connections across the notion of temporal regimes. At this point, it is important to take advantage of the fact that the purpose of this work is not to provide an exhaustive list of temporal regimes since the number of them, as mentioned, may be endless. Rather, if the work fulfils its goal, is well argued and properly delimited, the task of providing an analytical tool for cultural and social studies would not just be reached but may also be applied to further investigations in the future. In the present inquiry, I am focused in offering some examples of temporal regimes regarding politics (Chapter 2); technology (Chapter 3); and the tied among progress, utopia and acceleration (Chapter 4) by finally organising the current temporal regimes in two opposite tendencies towards homogenisation and heterogenisation (Conclusion).
Secondly, as long as regime indicates the existence of stable conditions or patterns and norms, while at the same time it enables the study of more than one temporal structure, the term can explain how time works in various fields and social conditions. For example, narrow spatio-temporal barriers that tend to homogenise a global society seem to be firmly associated with technical efforts in order to create a world market that promotes a global culture, turning less relevant local specificities. On the other hand, a current multicultural clash initiates a decentralised, pluriversal, multiple experience of time and their connections and frictions, linking liberal, progressive and democratic stances regarding state policies but also international affairs such as forced migration for economic or security reasons. Considering those pluralities, in two influential papers, one appeared in the introduction to the special issue on Multiple Temporalities published by History and Theory (2014) titled âIntroduction. Multiple Times and the Work of Synchronizationâ, and in another called âAgainst Periodization: Koselleckâs Theory of Multiple Temporalitiesâ by History and Theory (2012), Helge Jordheim argues that are necessary new approaches in social sciences and humanities that can provide proper concepts for temporal analyses in a non-easy understandable world, particularly related to the multiplicity of temporalities and (de)synchronies. Following Koselleckâs rendering of die Gleichzeitigkeit des Ungleichzeitigen (simultaneity of the non-simultaneous), Jordheim claims that temporality
For the latter, the notion of temporal regime addresses the temporal structural condition of âmodern timesâ2 as a long-term dimension in the sense of homogeneity, pointing out the existence of stable conditions, while enabling visibility for several schemes and varieties realising heterogeneous temporalities. As we will see, regime denotes rigidity and s...
