Reflections on time and technology

By Emil Røyrvik

­ Some people say that Jesus was a result of low timber prices in Galilee. Others say that Shakespeare was a random occurrence. Obviously, the explanation of social and technological developments lies somewhere in between these two suggestions, chuckles Anton Trætteberg, senior adviser at SINTEF Technology Management. - Time is certainly one of the most important 'inventions', says Trætteberg. The measurement of time was extremely important to scientific development, just as time has been at the very centre of the Western belief in progress.

­ Ever since the Renaissance the West has seen time as a linear phenomenon. The measurement of time was first used for navigational purposes at sea.

­ Can we explain that peculiar stage in the development of the bicycle which created the velocipede ­ the penny-farthing ­ with the huge front wheel? Yes, for a while cycling was looked on as a hazardous sport exclusively for the fearless, explains Anton Trætteberg of SINTEF Technology Management.

Others have conceptualized time in completely different ways. In agricultural societies there was little need to measure time, whereas the Chinese had time-keeping devices in parks and ponds. Indians in Central America constructed calendars based on cyclical principles. These calendars could cover a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, even a hundred thousand years, explains Trætteberg. - Their logic was that time does not just pass, it also returns.

Even if people in the West reached agreement about a common system for measuring time, it was only around the year 1550 that they were able to agree about the direction in which the hands of the clock should turn, and whether time should be measured in 12- or 24-hour cycles.

Standard time paved the way for industrialization

­ The conception of time can roughly be divided into three historic eras; the pre-modern, the modern and that of our own era: the post-modern, says Associate Professor Per Østby at the Centre of Technology and Society, Department of Interdisciplinary Cultural Studies. - The pre-modern conception of time was organic and local, whereas the modern era gave us a more organized, abstract and systematic structure of time and space. The post-modern or the late modern time seems to rearrange time again. We might see a more paradoxical and fleeting structure of time.

­ Take the relationship between time and the railway. In order to make everything work, we had to have a standard time for the whole railway system. To achieve this, clocks had to be mass-produced, so that people could coordinate their activities. The same could be said about modern trade and industry. In order to adjust to the demands of "modern times", both workers and directors had to carry time with them in the form of watches. Time and space were both industrialized. Time became standardized and uniform. Taylorism - with its ideas of efficiency - would obviously not have been possible without the clock, says Østby. Furthermore, Taylorism can be linked to mass production. Standard time had its parallel in identical products. The products that were manufactured industrially in the period between 1900 and 1970 were all quite similar. They were standardized products in a period of standardized time. Østby cites the example of white goods. - There was not much variation between different refrigerators or between different cookers.

In the period after 1970 not only did the concept of time change, but so did that of space, as well as manufactured products. In contrast to the modern period, today's post-modern era has lost a lot of its sense of unified and standardized values, according to Østby. Past and present, time and space, have become split up and re-united in different ways from before. In the same way, the design of goods or new products has gained some of this element of the complex and the paradoxical.

­ We are now able, at least artificially, to unite past and present by means of still and moving images, as is done, for instance, in the film Forrest Gump. And the link between the local and the global will become stronger. We say that Norway became united as a nation once everyone had access to a common state broadcasting system, so that everyone could watch the weather forecast on television. Today, CNN provides us with the weather forecast for the whole world, which would have been virtually inconceivable in 1950, says Østby.

The roadmatter and meaning

­ Technology is both a way of perceiving the world and also a means whereby the world can be ruled, says Østby. Technology can be considered as a sort of lens through which we can see in order to observe and understand ourselves and our surroundings, at the same time as technology can be a power by means of which we can develop, assist, control and destroy. Let us consider a few examples: weapons from the West are not only more efficient than before, they also increasingly signal cultural superiority and global dominance. Another, much more pleasant example is that of the Internet. This technological innovation is not only an efficient means of communication, it simultaneously transforms our notions of time and space, our sense of belonging or alienation, and our view of what is local and what is global.

­ Other obvious examples are those of the train and its tracks (the rail 'road') and the car and the freeway (the motor 'road'), says Østby. The point is that means of communication such as these were not merely forms of transport which were adapted to modern society. Each in their own way they have transformed rural as well as urban societies, and, what's even more important, they have changed our conceptions of what it means to live in the modern world. Østby is working on an interdisciplinary NTNU project entitled 'The road: part materials, part beliefs'. Here the railway, the motorway and the Internet are seen as different versions of the road. The starting point is that the physical structures, the material objects or technology, represent both a way of understanding and also a means to ensure that physical things and thought or symbol are connected.

­ For some people the road is their bread and butter, or a tool; for others it is a way of slipping into a dream or an adventure, says Østby.

He goes on to explain how different eras have had different conceptions of the road, at the same time as the nature of the road has changed.

­ We can differentiate between different roads in the same way that we can differentiate between different conceptions of time. In the beginning we had the horse and carriage road. This was a local road which didn't get you very far, but that didn't matter, because your interests as well as your conception of the world were limited. Later on we were given the railway and the motorway, which were associated with the modern era and with industrialization and the need to be mobile. Today, says Østby, we have the Internet - a post-modern road, a contemporary road, a hyper-connected road ­ a paradoxical and rearranged road underlining once again the interaction between technological and human elements in the history of technology.

­ Neither the car nor the train was the cause, or the result, of modernization. It makes more sense to conceptualize this issue in terms of the roles that the car and the road, the train and the railway, came to play in contributing to and uniting modernity in a more sensible way than had been done by earlier means of transport.

­ Just look at the bicycle, says Trætteberg. This is another example of how technology interacts with culture. First we invented the push-bike, which is very similar to the bicycle we see today, apart from the fact that it had no pedals and that it could not make a turn. Then we designed the velocipede or penny-farthing, with its huge front wheel. Later we had the so-called 'safety bike' which was designed for ladies and elderly gentlemen. Nowadays we all connect this version of the bicycle with the bicycle we have today. How can we explain such an atypical and strange interlude as that of the velocipede? There is a cultural explanation. Cycling was seen as a macho activity, as we call it today, a hazardous sport reserved exclusively for fearless young men.

The invention of all inventions

What about inventions and innovations? Are there any epoch-making events in the history of invention?

­ The most important name to mention here must be that of Thomas Alva Edison, who invented the system of invention itself, says Østby. Edison, who is best known for inventing the incandescent lamp, systematized invention and innovation. He took a number of experts from a range of different specializations along with him into the wilderness in Menlo Park, in between the political capital of Washington and the financial capital of New York, and he made important contacts with politicians and economists in the cities. The research laboratory, which is a centre of innovation even today, was thus founded at this point. Edison was both and inventor and an industrialist with an exceptionally clear vision of the whole innovative chain. Other inventors soon adopted his methods.

­ He laid the foundation of our conception of how to make inventions. He carried everything he needed with him into this laboratory in the wilderness: scientific books, experts, cooks and turners, not to mention all the various chemicals and substances in the world. The only things he didn't have in the lab were probably camel droppings and strands of Martian hair, says Østby with a twinkle in his eye.

­ The simplest aspect of an invention is the idea, how to invent something. What's difficult is how to put the idea into practice, because that means that all the components in a total system will have to function as a team, says Trætteberg. Examples of this are the art of printing and the steam engine where we see the struggle with both practical details and also the whole system of technology of which each invention is a part. Furthermore, Østby points out, people must be made to become interested, which is in itself a difficult task. The road from this point to commercial exploitation is another long distance that has to be travelled.

Thomas Edison systematized the making of inventions and innovations. He collected every article and chemical substance he could possibly find in his laboratory, which was situated in between the political capital of Washington and the financial capital of New York.
Photo: THE HENRY FORD MUSEUM & GREENFIELD VILLAGE.

The cultural framwork of innovations and the ability of innovators to adjust their visions and products to such framework seem to be critical for the success or failure of new products.

We could also consider the principle of the lever. This is another example of how far the distance is from theory to practice. This example, however, demonstrates the opposite; here practice went a long way ahead of the discovery of the principle itself.

The lever has been used as a tool throughout the centuries, but it was not until Archimedes that someone established the general principle behind it. He is known to have said 'give me a fixed point on which to stand and I will move the earth'. It took a very long time before the general principle emerged, but from that point onwards it was easy to transfer it into other areas. Theory is often extremely practical, says Trætteberg.

­ The next millennium will be dominated by a more conscious attitude to the interaction between technological insight and cultural understanding, predicts Østby. He points out that the challenges which society will have to face, whether it be industry's need for new products or the authorities' wish to solve political and practical 'bottleneck' problems, will increasingly become challenges of an interdisciplinary and 'cross-cultural' nature. Not only will this place demands on scientists in their role as experts, but also on their willingness to take an interest in other subjects and disciplines as well as to make use of them, but institutions too will be confronted with a demand for transformation in the fields of education and research.

What would have happened to Jesus had the prices of Galilean timber been high 2 000 years ago? Joseph would of course have been able to afford to marry his Mary, and thus the virgin birth would never have happened...

Contact at NTNU: Per Østby
Tel: +47 73 59 82 18
E-mail: Per.Ostby@hf.ntnu.no

Contact at SINTEF: Anton Trætteberg
Tel: +47 73 59 25 27
E-mail: Anton.Tratteberg@indman.sintef.no