Time does impose a totalizing framework–but this is modern, abstract time. Luckmann is operating within it, Lefebvre and Koselleck are describing what it does. Nowotny is proposing a different kind of time to organize lives.
One of the interesting aspects of the Ogle book is the possibility of seeing non-modern times, the various local times…[Read more]

Yes, it is all ideological–it is a formulation for some purpose. But that does not explain the ways that something like time has gained a status as external to human activity and what that specific form of time does.

One can argue that in the US there is another ideology (and more limited, even trivial)–that of the political. More seriously, do you think that Heidegger is operating in absolute time?

Your comment that we need a change in the conception of time recalls a comment by Nowotny in a more recent book (2016) The Cunning of Uncertainty: “In order to be able to accept change, time has to be created. In order to be able to accept changes with time, it could be continued, the categories of time have to be changed repeatedly.”
When we…[Read more]

I would argue that the distinction between sameness and difference, colonialism and fascism are two parts of the same structure (chronological time) and depend on each other–the colony is only possible because of a differentiation that is temporal–the same process used, but different scale for the claims to difference in fascism. Remember also…[Read more]

This prepares us for some of the discussion by Nowotny, that many of the problems or crises of the last hundred years are the result of modern processes, rather than misunderstanding or external cause.
One of the things I like about Lefebvre is that Marx is strong, but Marxism is not. That is, he uses the powerful observations and analyses of…[Read more]

Good discussion on the difference between alterity and other. Too often use of the self-other replicates the conditions described. The other is a condition for the self. We will talk about the past and present, even if it is a dialectic more–to me it is an artificial distinction. Finally, I have been fascinated by the aleatory, but have not…[Read more]

Good, I love that 1905-related quote. Maybe it speaks to historians! I also like that you end by thinking forward, what is possible.
I have often been criticized for overusing quotes from readings–hard to resist when there are so many good ones. Try to put these issues in your own words; helpful in the long run.

Yes, these are all effects. I would argue that modernity structures and frames those issues. Humans become self-aware, but within a system, rather than outside of it.

Yes, it is more than periodization (we will encounter this again with Osborne); I would go beyond your use of “bar.” Instead, it is to obscure the ideology, effectively naturalizing the contents of the period as given, objective, truth.

You’re in the comment section. I changed permissions and you should see the plus sign on the top information bar