Chapter 4

It changes space and time!

Introducing power-chronography¹

Sarah Sharma

Theorizing the politics of time and space are absolutely fundamental to a materialist approach to communication. In this chapter, I argue that the privileging of space over time in media studies risks aligning the field too closely with the logic of the market. I offer here a brief introduction of a materialist approach to time, power-chronography. Power-chronography is concerned with the multiplicity of time, the interdependent and inequitable relations of temporal difference that are compressed deep within the social fabric. Power-chronography examines how discourses about time and cultural practices related to the control of time elevate and devalue a range of bodies, practices, and labor.

“It changes space and time” is a rather excited incantation. I suspect you have heard some version of it before. It is a phrase that looms during office hours after the McLuhan weeks on the syllabus have passed. In recent years, locative media, Global Positioning System, ATMs, online banking, digital photography, portable music devices, and psychotropic drugs have all been space and time changers. “What do you mean, it changes space and time?” I ask. Well, they often say, this technology creates new spaces and new experiences of time. Because of this form of mediation, the body has a new relationship to space and time. This technology changes how people interact in social space. And quite often, “it changes space and time” is meant to capture some combination of all these things at once.

But when someone exclaims, “this media-technology changes space and time,” what they are really saying is this media-technology is a media technology. That a media-technology alters the qualitative experience of time and space is hardly surprising. Variations on the theme, “It changes space and time” echo McLuhan’s prolific statement “The message of any medium or technology is the change in scale or pace and pattern it introduces in human affairs” (McLuhan 1964: 8). Within medium theory, this is in fact the definition of what a media is, whether you think of media-technologies as tools, objects, or extension of the body and whether the media in question is a chair or a cellphone. All forms of media-technology, whether they are mobile, locative, clunky, minuscule, or fixed in place will alter, regulate, and change the qualitative experiences of space and time. Media-technologies are implicit in the production of temporal and spatial parameters of communication and political possibility.²

As Harold Adam Innis argued, each civilization is cultivated by specific concepts of space and time that evolve from the dominance of particular mediatechnologies (1951). The rise of a particular complex of media forms arise out of social, economic, and cultural struggles that are tied to physical geography as well as different forms of political organization (1971). Depending on whether or not space or time is emphasized, by a particular media or complex of media, certain monopolies of knowledge and power arise in that civilization. Space-binding media, from papyrus to the radio, are durable and light, and can be easily disseminated and therefore foster centralization. Civilizations that emphasize space over time tend to be imperial powers, involved in the conquering of space at the expense of the maintenance of culture over time. Time-binding media, such as stone, are heavy, cannot be easily transported, and foster decentralization. Civilizations that emphasize time tend to be practical oral cultures where time is treated in terms of continuity. In time-biased societies, space becomes a bounded sphere to be protected rather than a means to extend power outward. Civilizations biased in terms of space will spatialize time. Time becomes a resource, commodity, and sequence of events that can be managed and controlled. A space-biased culture, when left completely unchecked by technologies that foster time, can become overly invested in the present (1972a, 1972b).

I invoke Innis because his work allows us to see, that by all such determinations, global capital depends on spatially biased cultures. It is not just that our dominating technologies are spatially biased but our ways of knowing, systems of power, and even notions of resistance, tend to be spatial. A uniform time and universal space changing essence to technology is something that marketers of media use to tout their wares in order to convince people that the new gadgets deliver a better life. To focus on this time and space changing often negates attention to the structural politics of time and space, specifically the different bodies and labor that are reorchestrated to elevate and valorize our media forms over most of humanity. Whose utopia is celebrated in the excitement that software companies connect schoolchildren around the world? Whose routes and paths do we valorize when we explain how mobile phones change space when we can play games on the bus or find a new pizza joint? Whose labor and time is reorchestrated to make any of these “new” things happen? What routes and paths are devalued and what regimes of dependency are created in these new techno-cultural practices? For example, the global of US software firms requires new forms of precarious wage labor overseas, like outsourced call centers and e-garbage sorting facilities employing child labor.³ The political economy of locative media will determine that some neighborhoods are of no interest to the consumers who are being located into even more normalizing and knowable mobile populations. A materialist approach forefronts changes in space and time as a series of interrelated structural shifts in power dynamics rather than a generalized social phenomenon. Likewise whether you celebrate or denigrate, “It changes space and time” is always already a politicized statement, an ideological claim upon someone else’s, some other group’s, time and space. In every animation of “it changes and space and time” there is a privileged itinerary and with this itinerary there is inevitably a reorchestration of the time and space of others. It is attention to this rhythm as well as the differential relationship to time and space that are central to questions regarding the materiality of communication.

In terms of our role as media studies scholars, we need to think about how our epistemology lacks an approach to temporal politics to offset this increasingly problematic privileging of space, and with it the spatial treatment of time. A political sense of time is missing, not in terms of continuity or tradition but in terms of a conception of the temporal as a relation of power and site of material struggle. A materialist approach to media is greatly inspired by medium theory and how media-technologies operate as environments in which social, political, and economic life unfold. But insights into the materiality of communication are found by further examining what sets of relations and forms of struggle are more likely to be incorporated with particular media in different social and political contexts, over others. The critical point from a materialist perspective is that technologies themselves do not change space and time. Media work in complexes that include other media forms, discourses, bodies, money, and labor. For every changed experience of space and time there is an attendant concrete infrastructure made up of bodies and buildings, owners and workers, as well as discourses and data. Multiple temporalities are produced; they are interdependent, as well as unevenly distributed.

Speed: a time trap in a spatially biased field

Since the spatial turn, cultural theory has paid close attention to how space is imbricated in struggles over power – whether by extension, expansion, colonization, imprisonment, banishment, confinement, inclusion, and exclusion. There are borders, territories, public spheres, scales, nations, globes, locales, and landscapes. It is now theoretically regressive, or politically irresponsible, to write about space without an acknowledgment of the uneven geographies and inequitable geometries of power that coproduce space and the culture of mobility.⁴ However, the politics of time does not yet share a similarly documented systemic record or vocabulary anything akin to the politics of space. Yet in all of these forms of spatialized power you will find a temporal counterpart in the form of a material struggle. The politics of time it would seem is more subtly and quietly asserted, and in a sense unremarkable.

I suspect this is the case because shared space, or social space, remains the privileged construct in theories of democracy and public life. In terms of sovereignty, the nation is defined by its territory, its spatial limits. Theories of Empire and globalization, even with a receding notion of the nation, are oriented around space. But, time is treated as a mode, a way of occupying political and social space. In other treatments, time is an issue of transmission and receivership: how long does it take for one to get messages, what is the proper speed of social interaction, or the right tempo of democratic processes such as election campaigns and sound-byte forms of political communication. The spatial turn was a move away from a particular understanding of time as history toward a multiple, many layered, and multi perspectival modernity. The spatial turn gave rise to a particular treatment of time across the disciplines.⁵ With the end of history, came a focus on an imploding present and the politics of time became an issue of pace. This focus on speed ultimately comes at the expense of examining the deeper complexity of the structural politics of time as it is woven deep into the social fabric. The theoretical critique of the demise of democracy in a present-minded culture itself a spatially oriented critique. The discourse of the market and speed-theory is eerily similar. As I will discuss below, this is because neither the market nor this form of theorizing operates within a temporal conception of time. We would not expect the market to, but we must demand this of our field so that it is not subsumed further by market mentalities.

Speed theory, informed by the critical works of Paul Virilio, Bernard Stiegler, Zygmunt Bauman, Gilles Lipovetsky, Robert Hassan, and John Tomlinson, shares at least three fundamental provocations: 1. Space, understood as the preferred foundation for the political, has given over to the dictates of real-time. Public spaces are diminished by the rise of the apolitical non-places of speed culture. 2. Speed has evacuated the possibilities of a political public sphere leading to sound-byte political interaction, or what Robert Hassan terms “abbreviated thinking,” or Virilio, “live contemplation” (Hassan 2003, Virilio 1999). 3. Speed-up catapults the world’s citizens out of space and divides them in time between fast classes and slow classes. Fast classes are jet-setting fast and free whereas slow classes are those “people marooned in the opposite world are crushed under the burden of the abundant, redundant and useless time” (1998: 88). This is a new modern condition to which various monikers are given – Dromocratic society (Virilio 1998), Culture of Speed (Tomlinson 2007), Chronoscopic Society (Hassan 2003), or as Gilles Lipovetsky argues, these are Hypermodern Times (2005). The new chronometers are imploding and the beat of real-time echoes in every facet of everyday life. It is no longer the clock that speeds up the routinized day. It is email, the iphone, and instant computerized warfare. Virilio argues, “Today we have achieved three attributes of the divine: ubiquity, instantaneity, immediacy; omnivoyance and omnipotence. This is no longer a question of democracy this is tyranny” (1999: 17). Here, “Speed” is understood as the commanding byproduct of a mutually reinforcing complex, which includes global capital, real-time communication technologies, military machines, and scientific research on the human. But such a critical stance on technology and time has come at the expense of thinking about the structural politics of time.

Like E.P. Thompson’s thesis in Time, Work, and Industrial Capitalism, the new chronometers imposed by government and capitalist interests replaced earlier, collective perceptions of time that Thompson believed flowed from the collective wisdom of human societies. Theories of speed do imply a debt to Marx’s formulation of the clock’s production of socially necessary time, the quantification of work, and the production of value. Yet, the protagonists of speed theorist’s stories are no longer the working classes or any subjugated population for that matter. Instead, the theory flies above the factories, call centers, and the other shadowy spaces of contemporary capitalism that are producing the very social experience of speed-up. The concern over timescarcity, which as we know is also a hot topic with work–life balance coaches, distracts from a greater political engagement with time. Barely then does this theory address the institutionalization of the time they seem to be protecting. Work–Life balance as a concept already normalizes the institutional treatment of time and is an exclusive and inequitable temporal experience. Speed theorists, work–life-balance coaches, and marketers for new time-saving media-technologies draw upon the same fast-classed experience of time. This focus on pace and tempo occurs at the expense of those other necessary temporalities that produce this experience.

Innis’ concern for the increasing pace of life and the downfall of civilization is shared by contemporary Speed Theorists.⁶ But forgotten in the contemporary treatment of speed is Innis’ important conceit, the temporal is political regardless of speed and present in any given media form. The temporal results from a material struggle over meaning, resources, and power. The temporal encompasses ways of knowing, social relations of power, discourses, and concrete infrastructures, such as transportation systems. One of Innis’ most brilliant contributions was his insistence that power operates not only spatially and geopolitically, but also temporally. For Innis this is not a new condition resulting from speed but an enduring political and economic reality with important cultural effects. What we see with contemporary theorizing of speed and the public is something quite different. For media studies, time has rather suddenly become political because of the force of speed. For example, Virilio argues Geopolitics is supplanted by Chronopolitics. In other words, only today must we deal with a politics of time. This chronopolitical moment is dangerous for Virilio, as space is the ground of the political. Furthermore, Innis’ attention to empirical detail and contextualization of technology as fostering specific temporal and spatial relations of dependence and marginality, the orchestration of a range of social relations, economic practices, and forms of knowledge, is precisely what is missing in contemporary theoretical incantations, “it changes space and time,” “the world is getting faster,” there are “new spaces,” and these are “new times.”

Power-chronography: coming to (new) terms with time

Media studies needs to rethink the temporal in terms of a structural politics of time. My introduction of Power-chronography to the field comes as an intervention to what I see as the ever-burgeoning critique of speed, our blind assumptions about a culture of acceleration, as well as theories of mobility and social space that have not politicized time. I am inspired and indebted to Doreen Massey’s theory of power-geometry – a powerful intervention in cultural geography’s treatment of time–space compression. Her work highlights a differentiated subjectivity within the social relations of time–space compression and mobility. Massey’s work provides a consistent reminder of the geometries of power in social space, place making, and in practices of mobility. She argues, “different social groups have distinct relationships to this anyway differentiated mobility” (1994: 149). This attention to the geographies of difference provides an opening to consider the materiality of time as multiple and relational. Power-chronography examines more closely the structural politics of time within discourses and practices of speed rather than develops a politics of time in reaction to speed. Moreover, it recognizes that time politics are inherent in other categories of social difference, such as race, class, gender, and sexuality, thus making little sense to imagine that the politics of time is a new condition.

Power-chronography is a critical practice and theoretical approach to time that works to locate the normalizing temporal order maintained in claims about time as well as in cultural practices waged in the name of time control. I ask whose time, what time, and what kinds of time practices are elevated over others. Announcing epochal shifts with the coming of speed culture is a claim upon time that elevates certain bodies and practices over others. There is a privileged itinerary in the critical analysis – one that corresponds to the frequent business traveler and wealthy consumers of the latest gadget. Power-chronography detangles the interdependent and relational characteristics of temporal subjectivity. Power-chronography offers a pause, a temporary halt (Stuart Hall), into the temporal vicissitudes of contemporary power relations. Time is an arbiter of human worth, a structuring form of social difference. The social fabric consists of individuals whose sense of time and possibility are limited or expanded by the ways and means that they are in and out of time. Theorizing the temporal as a social relation of power means the intersecting moments of various social differences can be understood as part of a larger political economy of power. Powerchronography places emphasis on the temporal as a complex relation of power and thus problematizes appeals to singular media forms, as well as singular identity categories.

In what follows, I want to offer a quite truncated version of Power-chronography’s scope for examining the temporal – a dynamic absolutely necessary to materialist approaches to media-technologies. I offer some new terms: temporal infrastructure, temporal order, and temporal labor. I will touch on these very briefly below by showing how we might shift gears from the spatial treatment of time to power-chronography’s temporal treatment of time.

The airplane is often cited as a time–space compressing machine within the literature on speed. At first glance, it is easy to conclude the airplane’s speed is the yielding of space to time as it bridges geographic space in faster increments of time.⁷ The airplane conquers the obstacles of space through time. From a power-chronographic perspective, focusing on the experience of travel only tells us what the airlines have promised. Air Canada tells us to “Defy obstacles,” Delta promises “More space” while “Even Time Flies on Emirates” while you “Experience Waitlessness.” Instead, we might see the compression of space and time as an aura produced by a material infrastructure of bodies, labor, and money. It occurs, not because of some metaphysical essence in the technological capabilities hardwired into jets, but because of the work that a range of bodies do on the tarmac and at airport hotels, in cockpits and cabins, at desks and over counters. Moreover, the airplane works in conjunction with other media-technologies, such as cell phones, trains, and in-cabin entertainment, including light therapy to alleviate tired bodies of the stress of jet lag. The message of the medium is not just speed and the loss of space, but the rise of a temporal infrastructure made up of the multiple temporalities of those who labor in relation to the plane; ground traffic control, security personnel, baggage loaders, taxi drivers, hotel maids, and flight attendants, to name a few. These populations undergo related shifts in their own experiences of space and time. Employing power-chronography forces us to acknowledge that this speed these theorists write of is actually produced by a multiplicity of unacknowledged temporalities that do not necessarily experience life as fast, or relate to time as a matter of balancing and control. And further, these populations have different horizons of political possibility tied to where they exist within a larger temporal order that runs deep in the social fabric.

For speed theorists, with their attention oriented on the jet-setting bodies’ navigation of time, they can easily conclude this is an overworked and busy culture with everyone running on a treadmill going nowhere fast. In cultural theory, they are known by such monikers as “business tourist” (Virilio 2002), “global kinetic elite,” “fast classer” (Armitage and Roberts 2003), and the “air miles traveling class” (Sassen 1998). But such a focus on this singular temporality espouses a depoliticized understanding of temporality. The only possibility in this critique is for time-starved subjects, the privileged purveyors of speed, to slow down, take time-out. The critique of speed implies that a change in pace would counter the effects of speed – fight tempo with tempo. But across corporate culture and consumer society this is precisely what is taking place. The discourse of being time-starved and out of time pervades contemporary culture in such a deep and persistent way.⁸ Marketers depend on this same explanatory power of speed to capture the contemporary moment while promoting novel ways to create more time. Only on the very surface of social experience and with a very particularly privileged population is speed an adequate descriptor of the contemporary moment. Power-chronography reorients the analysis.

Instead of speed, this is a culture over-invested in and subject to regimes for what I call temporalizing the self. Since you cannot tangibly create more time or reverse lost time, certain individuals are invited to at least attempt to decelerate and accelerate at will by exercising an otherwise unknown amount of time control. In this vein, the time-starved subject is a popular target market, which means it is an identity that is also constructed by the market in order to sell new products and techniques for living properly in these fast times. Time control can be bought at quickie mart – you want to speed up, drink Red Bull, you want to slow your roll drink DRANK, the first extreme relaxation drink on the market. The corporate rat racer, a favorite of the pharmaceutical industry can take stimulants to stay up for 48 hours. This pill has moved from the military to the general public – soldiers pop the same pill in their own version of the Darwinian struggle. Increasingly their managers insist they tuck into the office napping-pod for a productive snooze. The reality of an alienating vocation can be conquered by acquiring wellness at work or accepting your manager’s offer of a Zen Warrior Worker course that will allow you to keep Irritable Desk Syndrome (IDS) at bay. If life feels fleeting, take it slow or hire a work–life balance coach.

To focus on the speed of life is to miss the significance of these practices. This is the construction of time-scarcity by dominant institutions actively working to create new forms of social control – including the normalizing of overwork by making it more palatable. Temporalizing the self tends to work best if one truly believes that things are speeding up. Feeling out of time, certain individuals are invited to recalibrate to fit into the various temporal demands of different institutions. Here bodies that are drifting, tired, and overworked, are retemporalized and reintegrated. The institutional arrangements that drain life will also provide the extra energy. The limits of individual bodies are overcome by introducing temporal enhancements in order to embrace, rather than reject, the institutional governance of time.

Power-chronography recognizes these examples as problematic not because of an apolitical tempo or depoliticized time but because these are technological solutions, corporate offerings, and new spheres of leisure indicative of a larger temporal infrastructure to reproduce normalizing and inequitable relationships of time. In this exertion of time control new forms of temporal difference arise, and old ones are exacerbated. A change in pace does not necessarily level temporal differences. Too often the belief that we are living in a dangerously sped up culture makes the demand for the labor of others justifiable as a systemic need in these fast paced times rather than the structurally excessive privilege that it is. Who has time for that? Speed as a universalized condition means that everyone can now be precarious, all the while forgetting that the temporally precariat have long been so – the unpaid labor of women in the home, those without health insurance, and the imported domestic servants and housecleaners who have no rights to education, healthcare or other forms of social welfare.

Speed theorists might be right to point out that with fast capital everyone becomes time-starved. What they do not account for, however, is that not everyone is outside of the order of time in remotely the same way. Lines of temporal normalization are drawn throughout culture and work to maintain uneven temporalities. This operates discursively but also in the material relations of contemporary global capital. A particularly poignant example is an ad campaign I stumbled across in Manhattan a few years ago. A popular beer company launched an advertising campaign promoting “you know you need a drink when …” “You know you’ve been working too long if you know your office cleaning lady by name” was plastered all over Manhattan’s streetscape below the skyscrapers that employee these very cleaning staffs and desk jockeys. While the ad might attest to being overworked and needing leisure, something not unique to the cultural dialogue about time, what is significant is that it speaks to the time of day for “other people” in a gendered, classed, and racist way. It attests to the prevalence of normalizing temporality – a time proper – within the greater cultural imaginary where business people work business hours and cleaning staff work around this schedule. These are two temporal routes that are supposed to remain indifferent and unrelated. It is assumed that they should not know each other, or interact. They share space but do not share time. In the end, it is the different ways these two figures occupy time that determines their social distance.

Uneven temporalities are sustained or exacerbated in individualistic attempts at gaining more time. And, relational temporal orders are drawn across distances as well. Seeking out the labor of others in different time zones is a key time-management strategy of survival in the United States. In the highly acclaimed “#1 Wall Street Journal Best Seller” The 4 hour Work Week the author instructs the self-enterprising subjects of an overdeveloped world how to outsource their life by hiring a remote personal assistant who works online from India. The delegation of life online is sold as a technological solution to save time. Companies such as “Your Man in India” offer overseas concierge services specifically for relocated Indian business classes who need property or family affairs managed in India while they are in the United States. Other companies, like Brickwork, offer remote assistants for a certain segment of self-enterprising subjects of neoliberalism within the United States and other western capitalist countries. Ferriss uses three different outsourcing services in India to manage his personal life, work life, and even his mental health. Asha, one of Ferriss’ assistant’s specific role is to take on his worry lists. He rejoices in her reply, “I will worry about this everyday … Do not worry.” Ferriss maintains, “It’s a strange feeling having people work for you while you sleep. Strange but Great … things are getting done” (Ferriss 2007: 116). There is a growing army of temporal reserve labor, like Asha, spatially dispersed. Temporal labor is a term I use to describe labor that is oriented specifically to the maintenance of another’s qualitative experience of time. These remote assistants are advertised as part of a technological solution to save time.

Conclusion

The 24-7-always-on-wherever-you-are-lnternet-world is a fantastical time claim, much like the space–time compressing airplane.⁹ These remote assistants, I mentioned above, work within a similar temporal order already erected by Verizon, Cisco, Hewlett Packard, and Expedia. They are the e-versions of the sweatshop. They are employed by individuals with spatialized sense of time where being human now means one is a CEO of the self with a nonrelational sense of time and space. A growing army of entrepreneurs and intellectuals, whose itineraries are more important than their spatial locations, employ and make use of many undervalued bodies on the other side of the wires. These entrepreneurs of new time and new space rove with their blackberries imagining a world of global connection, which they control. But what they are orchestrating is the devalued labor and devalued time of others. We can notice the blackberry and iphone. How it enables people to work anywhere, anytime, and stay “connected.” How it is a new time and new space for new communicative possibilities. We can also critique all this as indicative of more encroachment into our time and our space, the blurring lines between public and private, and then demand more time and more space. Or, we can think power-chronographically and examine what other itineraries are being gathered and reorchestrated in the tap, text, click, push, and point of our fingers.

Notes

References

Adam, Barbara. 1990. Time and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity.

Adam, Barbara. 1995. Timewatch: The Social Analysis of Time. Cambridge: Polity.

Adam, Barbara. 2004. Time. London: Blackwell.

Angus, Ian. 1998. The Materiality of Expression: Harold Innis’ Communication Theory and the Discursive Turn in the Human Sciences. Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 23: No. 1, 1–15.

Armitage, John, and Joanne Roberts. 2003. Living with Cyberspace: Technology and Society in the 21st Century. New York: Continuum.

Berland, Jody. 2009. North of Empire: Essays on the Cultural Technologies of Space. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Ferriss, Timothy. 2007. The 4-Hour Workweek: Escape 9-5, Live Anywhere, and Join the New Rich. New York: Crown Publishers.

Greene, Ronald Walter. 2010. Spatial Materialism: Labor, Location, and Transnational Literacy. Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol 27: No. 1, 105–110.

Hassan, Robert. 2003. The Chronoscopic Society: Globalization, Time, and Knowledge in the Network Economy. New York: Peter Lang.

Hassan, Robert, and Ronald E. Purser (eds.) 2007. 24/7: Time and Temporality in the Network Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Innis, Harold A. 1951. The Bias of Communication. Toronto, Ontario: UP.

Innis, Harold A. 1971. A History of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Toronto, Ontario: UP.

Innis, Harold A. 1972a. Empire and Communication. Toronto, Ontario: UP.

Innis, Harold A. 1972b “The Problem of Space” in Drache (ed.). Staples, Markets, and Cultural Change: Selected Essays Harold A. Innis. Montreal: McGill UP.

Jhally, Sut. 1993. Communications and the Materialist Conception of History. Continuum, Vol 7: No. 1, 161–182.

Lipovetsky, Gilles. 2005. Hypermodern Times. Andrew Brown, trans. Malden, MA: Polity.

McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media. New York: McGraw Hill.

Massey, D. 1994. Space, Place, and Gender. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Mayer, Vicki. 2011. Below the Line: Producers and Production Studies in the New Media Economy. Durham, North Carolina: Duke UP.

Melbin, Murray. 1987. Night as Frontier: Colonizing the World after Dark. New York: Free Press.

Parks, Lisa. 2004. “Kinetic Screens” in Anna McCarthy and Nick Couldry (eds.). MediaSpace. Durham, North Carolina: Routledge.

Rifkin, Jeremy. 1987. Time Wars: The Primary Conflict in Human History. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Sassen, S. 1998. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: New York Press.

Scheuerman, William. 2004. Liberal Democracy and the Social Acceleration of Time. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP.

Scheuerman, William. 2005. Busyness and Citizenship. Social Research, Vol. 72: No. 2.

Stiegler, Bernard. 2009. Technics and Time, 2: Disorientation. Stephen Barker, trans. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Thompson, E.P. 1967. Time, Work, Discipline and Industrial Capitalism. Past and Present, Vol. 38, 56–97.

Tomlinson, John. 2007. The Culture of Speed: The Coming of Immediacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Virilio, Paul. 1986. Speed and Politics. Mark Polizzotti, trans. New York: Semiotext(e).

Virilio, Paul. 1999. Politics of the Very Worst. New York: Semiotext(e).

Virilio, Paul. 2002. Crepuscular Dawn. New York: Semiotext(e).