In reality there were no regular hours: masters and managers did with us as they liked. The clocks at the factories were often put forward in the morning and back at night, and instead of being instruments for the measurement of time, they were used as cloaks for cheatery and oppression. Though this was known amongst the hands, all were afraid to speak, and a workman then was afraid to carry a watch, as it was no uncommon event to dismiss any one who presumed to know too much about the science of horology [clock and watch making].8
Furthermore, if people could be taught the new time discipline early in life, they would be better prepared to meet the growing synchronization demands of the workplace. As a result, there was an increased emphasis on teaching punctuality in schools in both England and the United States. Such practices continued in the twentieth century. Allen Bluedorn notes that in 1903, his American maternal grandmother, at the age of thirteen, received a school attendance certificate with the telling phrase “having been neither absent nor tardy during the month ending.”9 To this day, meeting attendance requirements is an essential criterion for graduation at the London School of Economics.
In recent years there has been a lively discussion about the historical accuracy of the major prevailing accounts of clock time. In their volume Shaping the Day: A History of Timekeeping in England and Wales 1300–1800, Paul Glennie and Nigel Thrift critique the technological determinist version based on drawing direct relationships between technical developments in clocks and the hegemony of clock time.10 They also maintain that Thompson’s account draws too direct a relationship between economic changes and clock time. Echoing my own perspective, the authors argue that while we need to take the devices seriously, it is important to understand clock times as everyday practices, which were (and are) remarkably diverse.
Time and Motion
41