One of the ultimate measures of worth, in human life, is time. And yet, theories of justice, in their debates about “currencies” of justice, have not considered it. Time in a physical sense flows the same way for everyone, of course. But time as experienced—how much autonomy one has over it, with whom one can share it, how much of it one has in good health and full of energy—differs widely between human beings. Political philosophy needs to pay more attention to time. This is a matter not only of justice, but also of democracy.
Some theorists of justice have made the distribution of time an issue. Most notably, Julie Rose has argued that the distribution of free time, and also the availability of free time together with others, is a key requirement for individuals to be able to make use of their freedoms. Think about freedom of assembly: it is of little value if nobody has time to come to a meeting or a rally. As societies, we need to give ourselves rules that give everyone enough free time, alone and together with others.
Time is also an issue in theories of “post work.” Although not framed in terms of time justice, a key point here is how to reduce paid working time—without wage reductions—to allow people greater freedom in how to lead their lives. Even if one may be skeptical of claims about a possible “end of work,” thanks to robots and AI, it is true that the productivity gains that these new technologies provide put the topic high on the agenda. Should these gains go only to the owners of robots and AI patents, or also to society as a whole, in the form of higher wages but possible also lower working hours?
Many of these accounts argue for less work time, but they do not ask what people do with their free time. Here, questions about volunteering and social and political engagement come in—and the connection to democracy becomes clear. It is a curiosity of the current state of political philosophy that questions of justice and questions of democracy are often discussed separately. This may make some sense if one thinks that they are about different spheres of society, with different currencies of justice—equal democratic voice in the political sphere, and a just distribution of welfare or resources in the economic sphere. But if it comes to the distribution of time, this division is difficult to maintain.
Democracy, as a form of government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” in Lincoln’s famous phrase, takes time. Arguably, many of the current ills of democracy have to do with citizens’ lack of time—in the practical sense of having limited time for engagement, but also in the sense of one’s energy being used up by other demands on one’s time, with no time left for being a good citizen. Even if one understands democracy as consisting mostly in the participation in elections, there are questions about the time it takes to inform oneself properly, and to think about and discuss political questions so that one can form a settled opinion. If one understands democracy, in the Deweyan sense, as a “way of life,” then it becomes even more obvious that it is necessary to make time for it.
Couldn’t the surge in productivity through robots and AI free up time not only for people’s private lives, but also to make “time for democracy”? Couldn’t it allow them to participate in joint activities, to solve common problems, to bring people together with others? I am here not thinking of mandatory service time, although there are also arguments in its favor. Rather, I am suggesting more time, in people’s lives, for voluntary activities in neighborhoods or around their children’s schools, in professional associations or religious communities. Such “public work” could help address the “epidemic of loneliness” that the World Health Organization has diagnosed. But it could also build social ties from the bottom up, recreating some of the rich associational life that had, in the past, tied citizens into national politics.
Such proposals invite various objections. Let me address two. The first is that they might smell of “Big Society”: the idea of letting volunteers do work that should be done by state institutions, as part of austerity measures. This is a real risk in today’s situation, but it need not be so: civil servants and citizens can often achieve the best results if they collaborate. Albert Dzur has explored various cases of “democratic professionalism,” in areas reaching from public journalism to the medical ethics. This shows how the expertise of professionals in public institutions can be combined with the local and experiential knowledge of citizens.
A second objection is that people might not want to participate—they might welcome work time reduction, but they might use it for mindless online entertainment rather than civic engagement. After all, there are many companies that would want to keep people glued to screens, to monetize their attention. This is a real worry, but it is not impossible to overcome. Disillusionment with our digitalized life is growing, and civic activities might develop a pull of their own. There is the social side: like in sports teams, the commitment to one’s peers can be a strong motivation. And there is the chance to see such work as meaningful: to make a concrete contribution to a real-life issue, which many people miss in their jobs. To get such activities of the ground, municipalities can offer public spaces in which they can take place, or subsidies could be offered, especially for endeavors that bring people together across lines of class, religion, or party.
The labor movement once had the slogan “Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, and eight hours for what you will.” It is not clear whether the “you” here is in the singular or the plural. If my arguments are correct, it needs to be, at least in part, a plural “you”. And if everyone chimes in, there is certainly no need for that to be eight hours a day. If a four day work week could be realized in the not-too-distant future, half a day for public work, and half a day for one’s private life could be gained. As democratic citizens, shouldn’t we try to make that time?
The post Time is Political first appeared on Blog of the APA.
Read the full article which is published on APA Online (external link)
