{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","title":"Time, Consumption and Everyday Life Practice, Materiality and Culture","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","id":"1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","uuid":"1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","title":"Time, Consumption and Everyday Life Practice, Materiality and Culture","normalized_title":"timeconsumptionandeverydaylifepracticematerialityandculture","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":null,"isbns":[],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":236,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Time%2C%20Consumption%20and%20Everyday%20Life%20Practice%2C%20Materiality%20and%20Culture","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/1dc0854c-957b-4fb1-af9a-bb4fdb76b77e/search"},"page":{"printed_page":57,"pdf_page":62,"physical_index":62,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"67da6bab0b025aa8e98a61b4d63b789632ccdf764c25e58bcfe8d4c43fb293d4"},"chapter":"List of Tables and Figures","content":"Negotiating Time\n\nA range of strategies were employed by interview respondents when negotiating the coordination of practices in 2000 (Southerton 2003). In some cases respondents imposed predictable routines on day-to-day activities or created socio-temporal boundaries between day-time and evenings, between days or parts of the day for housework, and between times at work designated as breaks and productive time. The use of lists to detail the sequence in which practices should be conducted or to remember impending deadlines was a second strategy. Many respondents employed shared diaries and schedulers in order to coordinate the temporal schedules of household members, including combinations of individual diaries, household calendars, chalk boards and notes on fridges. A fourth strategy was the use of coordinating devices, such as mobile phones, e-mail and traffic warning systems; all being devices with a capacity to re-schedule personal arrangements at the last minute. Finally, everyone relied on time-saving and -shifting devices. Answering machines, VCRs and a variety of domestic appliances (including freezers, microwaves, dishwashers, automatic timing systems on ovens and washing machines) were deemed essential for shifting components of practices within time in ways that generated greater flexibility in personal schedules. In their various ways, such devices allowed respondents to by-pass conventional socio-temporal constraints. For example, the freezer–microwave combination re-sequences the temporalities of the practice of meal provisioning; food shopping can be done with less frequency, a meal can be cooked and stored for months before consumption, and a meal can be placed on the table subject to a few minutes of re-heating (Shove and Southerton 2000). All strategies provided greater personal flexibility in the allocation of practices within time. However, they also add another level of need for allocation and coordination.\n\nAs demonstrated by Mrs Friend’s Monday routines surrounding ‘laying the fire’, technologies also played an important role in the negotiation of temporal rhythms in 1937. Yet, no diarist wrote of scheduling devices such as diaries, calendars or chalk boards in the kitchen; in 1937 there appeared little need to coordinate the movements in time and space of household members. Coordinating devices were not required because fixed institutional events such as meal and work times, or Monday as laundry day, structured temporal rhythms such that coordination was embedded in the routines of daily life. In all these ways, time was not negotiated in the same sense as in 2000: temporal rhythms were not malleable. Domestic tasks were fixed in time; there were some slippages in the schedules but a blueprint schedule remained firmly in place.\n\nThis is not to say that the diarists of 1937 did not plan or make mental notes about tasks that needed to be completed. Mrs Cotton (28 years old, married with a young child, housewife and elocutionist, living in Brighton) described in her Saturday diary how she ‘planned the week-end menu’ and ordered ‘everything required up to Monday’s breakfast’. At 12.30 p.m. on the same day, Mrs Hodson (38 years old, married housewife with one child, living in Marlow) began cooking the Sunday lunch of roast mutton, commenting that ‘most working class people cook the joint on Sunday, but I cook on Saturday to lessen the work next day’. While the planning of activities was identifiable in 1937 diaries, there was little sense of the need purposefully to coordinate individual schedules of practices across social networks or to plan the sequence of those practices at the level of detail described by the interview respondents of 2000.\n\nRe-ordering Temporal Rhythms\n\n57","previous_page":56,"next_page":58}