The Time of Politics, the Politics of Time, and Politicized Time: an Introduction to Chronopolitics

Critical Analysis

In this article, the authors present the idea of chronopolitics as a framework for the way time and politics interact. They explore the history of chronopolitics, and then create a taxonomical framework for considering the relationship between time, politics, and power.

The authors explain that time is frequently overlooked, because it is “so deeply interwoven with all aspects of politics… the politics of time is strongly connected to the question of how change is understood and managed.” The authors note that studying chronopolitics requires historizing the idea, which itself is an example of the relationship they are investigating.

Sociologist George W. Wallis is credited with the first use of the word chronopolitics, using it to show that there is a relationship between change and social development, and time; it is about periods of transition. Power is deeply embedded in time, as exemplified through the shift from task-based action to time-based action during the industrial revolution.

The word “chronocenosis” is introduced to describe how time is layered into different epochs in order to “deny people within a society or whole societies coevalness.” Time is “shaped, but not exclusively defined, by those in power,” and the authors describe that a calendar and standardized time itself is a means of oppression, as it presents an artificial order to time, which then makes a certain type of history possible to know (and others possible to ignore).

After describing the history of chronopolitics, the authors then propose a taxonomy for discussing the relationship between time and politics. This includes a distinction between politics of time, the time of politics, and politicized time.

The politics of time describes when time is political action. This is the idea of a clock-based time, daylight savings time, timetables, and so-on: managed time. The time of politics describes how political institutions “come with their own times,” such as the duration of time someone spends in office and the age at which someone can vote. This also references the action or non-action that occurs during a time; as an example, keeping someone waiting is a form of non-action that presents a differential in power. Politicization of time is the use of time as a challenge to others, or a way to legitimize oneself. This shows up as a reference to a “better time” or in anticipating a different “future time” that will be better than now. This engages in “temporal distancing,” as if to say that what is happening now can be separated from (and viewed as better than) something else.

The authors conclude by claiming that this three-dimensional framework is a way to transcend institutionalized divides, and “may serve as a starting point for such a transepochal agenda.”

Research Value

The value of this work in informing my own research is that it:

• Offers a lens for looking at the unique time of studio, where classes take a long time (held for hours), students are theoretically free to engage during those periods in ways they see fit, and the use of timeblocks itself is a differentiation from other forms of shorter and therefore “less rigorous” learning
• Presents studio structures as a source of political power, with faculty, administration, or nostalgia containing how a design student can experience their education
• Positions the tradition of “spending time in the studio” (being present in the space for long periods of time) as an oppressive form of politicization of time
• Views studio as an indoctrination into a politics of creative time, where designers need to “be creative” on schedule and on demand