Time Use

views updated

Time Use

Family scholars have traditionally been interested in the role of time in shaping the organization of family experience. Anthropologists who studied families in preindustrial cultures were interested in the way that families lived their lives according to the temporal rhythms of nature, with the tides, the seasons, and the movement of the sun giving structure to everyday life. Although different time devices such as sundials and water clocks have been used throughout the ages to measure time, it was only in the thirteenth century that the mechanical clock came into being as a more precise measure of time. Mechanical clocks were first developed in medieval monasteries as an aid to the discipline of monastic life (Whitrow 1988). Over the course of the fourteenth century clocks became more numerous on church steeples and in the main town belfry. These public clocks, which began with only an hour hand (because people then did not have the same concern with precision as we currently have) were central to community organization, bringing citizens together to defend, celebrate, or mourn. During this time, families had much less privacy, and the temporal routine of everyday life was shaped more by community activity. In contrast with the tendency to think of current nuclear families as very private and determining their own daily schedules, families during this period were more likely to be defined as households with boarders and a regular flow of guests that contributed to a much looser, and in some ways a more chaotic, everyday routine. Celebrations that we now typically associate with being special family time such as Christmas, weddings, or funerals were more likely to be treated as community, rather than family, celebrations (Gillis 1996). Although family time has become increasingly important among dual-earner families today, this is a concept that had no meaning until it was introduced in the mid-nineteenth century by the Protestant middle classes during the Victorian era. Prior to this, families experienced their leisure time through participation in community fairs, games, and festivals. During the Victorian period, families became more focused on and invested in children. As a result, family times such as Christmas, Easter, Chanukah, birthdays, graduations, confirmations, and bar and bat mitzvahs played an increasingly important role in marking family time as special and unique. It was also during this time that Sunday became the archetypal day for family time and the family dinner, the living room parlor and children's bedtimes took on importance as part of family rituals.

Mechanical clocks also had a profound impact on the way that time was valued and controlled. With the rise of the money economy in the fourteenth century, the value of time began to rise (Whitrow 1988). As money circulated, time came to be associated with commercial value because the activities used to generate money or profit could now be weighed in terms of how much time it took to ready a product for sale. It was during the period of industrialization and the rise of the factory system (eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) that clocks more firmly established the close association between time and money. Karl Marx wrote about the clock as a being a precise measure of labor activity that was the basis for increasing the efficiency of labor power, which was so important for generating a profit in capitalist industries. In the late 1800s, Fredrick Taylor (i.e., the Taylorization of the workplace) introduced time and motion studies to the shop floor with the intention of making the manufacturing process more precise, calculated, efficient, and profitable.

These economic changes had important implications for the organization of time in family life. Capitalism created a split between wage labor, now taking place in the factory, and the forms of production that were previously taking place in the family and the community. The separation of work and family during the onset of industrial capitalism played a key role in bracketing free time and family time as different from work time. In addition, it gave a different meaning to the work carried out by men and women. Because men were the first to be called on for jobs in the factory, their time came to be more highly valued because it received a wage and was connected with the production of profit in the company. By contrast, women's work became private labor in the home and was under-valued because of its disconnection with commercial activity. Continuing disparities in the value of women and men's time have their roots in these economic developments.

Dramatic changes in the patterns of women and men's work since World War II have had an enormous impact on the way that time is organized in families. Following the war years when women were recruited to work in the factories to support the war effort, governments created policies that restricted women from working in many occupations and encouraged women to stay at home and care for families. This was short-lived. The rise of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s resulted in a dramatic return of women to the paid labor force. Buoyed by developments in birth control, equal pay policies, and the rise of day care, women moved into the labor force in massive numbers such that the majority of women in families are now in the paid labor force (see Trends below). This had profound implications for the organization of time in these families. Whereas single breadwinner families had schedules that involved a clear division of labor and tended to be dominated by the work schedules of the husband, dual-earner families were faced with a convoluted division of labor and a much more challenging set of negotiations for working out the everyday family schedule. Competing schedules and organizing day care coverage for preschool children, as well as reallocating household responsibilities, were central to the creation of the daily routine. During this same period, family structures also changed dramatically, due in large part to the rise of divorce. As a result, stepparenting, single parenting, and custody arrangements created different challenges for planning, coordinating, and organizing time in families.

Although the mean number of paid working hours for individual women and men did not increase dramatically in the United States between 1970 and 1997 (Robinson and Godbey 1997), there are three factors that have contributed to a growing feeling of time urgency in families ( Jacobs and Gerson 1998). First, the dramatic increase in the number of wives and mothers in the paid labor force has reduced the amount of unpaid familial support in the home. Second, there have been increases in the number of hours (ten hours per couple between 1970 and 1997) that husbands and wives combine to spend in the labor market, again resulting in a net drain on family time. Third, there has been an escalation of overwork (working fifty or more hours per week) among the well educated in managerial and professional positions. Canadian data from the 1998 General Social Survey indicate that those between the ages of twenty-five and forty-four who were married parents and employed full-time faced the biggest time stresses: overall men worked an average of 48.6 hours and women 38.8 hours of paid work activities (Statistics Canada 1999).

Globalization has also had an impact on the experience of time in families. During the time when community life was organized around the main town clock, there was no coordination of time from one town to another. Time was local, and the clock was set according to local standards. The sophistication of travel through the use of trains in the late nineteenth century created a demand for the coordination of these local times. Watches and personal clocks also became more accessible during this time and added to the pressure to find a system for standardizing time. These efforts culminated in the creation of uniform system of world time called Greenwich time at the International Conference on Time in Paris in 1912.

Since then, the development of sophisticated computer technology and the breakdown of international trade barriers have given rise to the globalization of the world economy. These developments have taken time from the town belfry and put it at the center of a highly sophisticated world system of trade and communication. Globalization has broken down the boundaries of space and in so doing has delocalized time and loosened it from its moorings in the community environment. The Internet gives access to a world that never sleeps. Globalization has created new time pressures, new anxieties about time that go well beyond the traditional anxiety associated with getting to work on time. Faxes, conference calls, electronic mail, and the interdependence of global stock markets require a temporal coordination that extends beyond one's immediate geographical context. For families, vigilance to the multiple demands of world time results in constant sensitivity of time, a hurried pace of life, an expectation of growing possibilities in the efficient use of time, and the potential for more competing demands in the individual use of time within families.

Technology plays a major role in reshaping the meaning of family time. Devices such as cellular phones and home computers have made the boundary between work time and family time much more permeable than it ever was. By opening a hole in the fence that surrounds private family time, technology keeps families in a state of interruption. At the same time, the availability of technology within the home also appears to be playing a role in keeping the family closer to home. The increasing availability of VCRs, compact disks, home computers, and home exercise machines means an increase in the opportunities for leisure at home. Devices such as pagers, once used only for business purposes, are now commonly used for family reasons with children and aging parents. Similarly, electronic mail, phone mail, fax machines, and computer networks create an opportunity for family members to do their paid work at home. Television, too, with its expanding band of cable channels, continues to draw families around the electronic hearth. Television represents one of the main uses of free time in the United States. For example, people with grade-school educations spend more than half of their free time watching television compared with just over one-third for college graduates (Robinson and Godbey 1997).

Forces such as industrialization, information technology, and the globalization of the world economy have given rise to a perception that the pace of life has accelerated dramatically. The values of speed and efficiency have come to dominate daily life. As the world puts on pace with respect to the exchange of information and commercial goods, so too have families put on pace as a way of adapting to these changes (Daly 1996). Our language of time is revealing: we talk of time famine, time compression, multitasking, and time scarcity. One of the ways that families cope with the demands of speed and efficiency is through time-deepening whereby they plan activities with a precise regard to time, carry out more than one activity at a time, or substitute a faster leisure activity for one that takes a long time (Robinson and Godbey 1997).

Conceptions of Time in Families

Our dominant approach for studying time in families has been to examine, through time diary studies, how much time family members devote to the activities of paid work, unpaid work in the home, leisure activity, and time for personal care. National time diary studies offer insights into the patterns of time use within families and as they change historically (see Trends below for a review of key trends). Many other conceptualizations of time, however, have relevance for understanding time in families.

Circular models. Circular models of time are driven by nature. Time is viewed as a cycle of seasons, the cyclical rhythm of day and night, and through the human cycle of birth and death. For families, cyclical patterns of work and rest, planting and harvesting, celebration and mourning, or growth and decay are tied to the cycles of the natural world. Circular models of time continue to dominate the patterns of experience for hunting and gathering and agricultural societies.

Linear models. The past, present, and the future give rise to a conception of time that is organized in a linear fashion. We think of the arrow of time or the march of time as we move progressively and unidirectionally through time without any return to the past. Individual aging, the progression of families through their developmental stages, and history itself are all linear ways of thinking about time. Families have linear histories marked by a series of events, including birthdays, deaths, and anniversaries. Although some of the rituals that are used to mark these events are repeatable and cyclical, they typically represent the idea of progression through time—a directionality of success (as in marriage anniversaries), maturity (as in birthdays), or accomplishment (as in graduations). In each of these, movement along a time line is the implicit focus of the celebration.

Biology and time. At the root of the individual experience of time is the process of change and development that is part of the aging process. From pimples to wrinkles, bodies provide the tangible signs of individual aging and the passage of time. These developmental changes are also the basis for social evaluations of being on-time or off-time with respect to family transitions. Becoming pregnant as a teen is therefore deemed early, whereas a pregnancy at forty-seven is considered late. Like all living organisms, human beings experience the rhythm of their own circadian clocks, which regulate a variety of behavioral and physiological rhythms. These are associated with twenty-four-hour cycles of temperature and light and include sleep-wake cycles, feeding cycles, body temperature cycles, and a variety of hormonal and metabolic oscillations. Illnesses also precipitate a reordering of time in families to accommodate doctor's visits and reallocate tasks left undone as a result of the illness.

Social organization of time. Although clocks are a relatively recent invention in the history of humankind, they are now central to the organization of complex societies. As a result, children are socialized from early on to pay attention to schedules and to learn the social value of punctuality and the organization of time. Whereas families were once more likely to live and work together, they now require sophisticated time scheduling tools to manage the intersection of many independent schedules. Families routinely disperse into their own temporal schedules, which not only requires that children be equipped with time skills early on, but that the family be diligent about managing their time together and apart.

As part of social organization, time is expressed through explicit rules and informal norms that govern social life. Hence, work organizations have rules about the hours of work, businesses dictate the hours of commerce, and schools have rules about attendance and punctuality. These formal time rules provide a structure for everyday life. Families also create time rules having to do with curfew, being home for meals, or TV time. Although these may be formal, they are more often a part of a web of social expectations that are understood but not explicitly stated. Informal time norms get expressed through social expectations such as promptness, not wasting time, or the tendency to think of work before play.

Culture and time. Cross-cultural lenses can play a useful part in contrasting the values currently associated with time in our own culture. For example, while punctuality in North America means that you must arrive within minutes of the appointed hour in order to be on time, in many Latin American countries one usually has the flexibility of an hour or two before being considered late (Levine 1988). Ethnic groups within a larger culture also have different temporal norms and practices about when childbearing and rearing should begin and end, the timing of marriage, or the relative importance of work and leisure. Some countries, most notably in Europe, are much more deliberate about actively discouraging overwork. For example, France and Italy have taken the lead in legislating the thirty-five-hour work week supported by tax incentives and fines. Most European countries have twice the amount of vacation that is usually granted in the United States. (Robinson and Godbey 1997).

Controlling time. As time is perceived to be more scarce, more conflicts arise about time control, allocation, and entitlement. This happens both within families and between families and the social organizations they participate in. Within families, the control of time is manifested in a variety of ways: tag-team parents negotiate who will be home for the children after school and who will do the pick ups and drop-offs; separated and divorced parents negotiate custody schedules; and siblings negotiate TV times. Controlling time within families has been a central part of gender politics with women and men struggling to work out responsibilities for childcare, housework, and a fair entitlement to free time.

The struggle to control time between families and the organizations of which they are a part is most apparent in the challenge that families have in trying to balance work and family. Work represents a dominant obligation for families. Work organizations take precedence with the consequence that people (especially men) in Western cultures overperform in occupations and underperform in other roles. Because people have much less control over their work lives than over their family lives, their family lives tend to adjust to their work schedules rather than the reverse. Work organizations have begun to develop family-responsive policies that shift the control balance towards more control of time for family members. Flexible scheduling or working from home, for example, allow men and women more discretion in the way that they set up their daily or weekly schedule so that they can avoid conflicts with family and household responsibilities.

Major Trends in Time Use in Families

Although the way that families allocate their time to various activities is subject to multiple measurement challenges, several key trends offer insight into the way time is used in North American families.

Paid work. Based on U.S. data, the overall employment rate for married women between the ages of sixteen and sixty-four has risen from three out of ten in 1960 to six out of ten in 1997. For married men, there has been a decline from 90 percent in 1960 to 78 percent in 1997 (Teachman, Tedrow, and Crowder 2000). Sixty-four percent of women with children under the age of six and 78 percent of women with children between the ages six and seventeen were employed. ( Jenkins, Repetti, and Crouter 2000).

In spite of the dramatic increase in the number of women in the paid labor force, men spend more time in paid work than do women. According to the most recent time diary data (collected in 1985), employed men spend an average of forty hours per week in paid work compared to just over thirty hours for women (Robinson and Godbey 1997).

Unpaid work. When all unpaid activities in the home are taken together, women appear to devote twice as much time as men (Robinson and Godbey 1997). When the focus is on childcare activities only, significant disparities remain, but the overall trend is toward convergence. Based on an extensive review of the parental involvement literature, Pleck (1997) reports that whereas men spent only about one-third the amount of time that women did being engaged with their children in the 1960s and 1970s, that figure has risen to approximately 44 percent in the 1990s. Furthermore, as higher numbers of women continue with paid employment after having children, women are doing less housework, and men are doing slightly more (Coltrane 2000).

Leisure time. In general, women have less leisure time than men (Robinson and Godbey 1997). However, employment status is an important factor. In a national study of time use in Canada, full-time employed married mothers and full-time employed single mothers have the least amount of leisure time (3.6 hours a day each). By comparison, mothers who worked part-time had 4.5 hours a day, and nonemployed mothers had 5.0 hours a day. Full-time employed fathers (25–44) have more leisure (4.2 hours per day) than full-time employed mothers or single mothers (3.6 hours each) but less than mothers who work part-time (4.5 hours per day) or nonemployed mothers (5.0 hours per day) (Statistics Canada 1999).

Family time. A national survey of the changing workforce in the United States indicates that 70 percent of employed mothers and fathers feel that they do not have enough time to spend with their children (Bond, Galinsky, and Swanberg 1998). Among Canadians, the 1998 General Social Survey indicates that approximately eight out of ten full-time employed married women and men with at least one child at home felt that weekdays were too short to accomplish what they wanted to do, with more than one-half indicating that they would want to spend more time with their family and friends if they had more time (Statistics Canada 1999). By contrast, a recent study indicates that children are much less likely to report having too little time with their parents—approximately 30 percent (Galinsky 1999). In spite of parents' desire to spend more time with their families, indications are that parents are spending as much or slightly more time with their children compared to twenty years ago (Bond et al. 1998).

Children's use of time. Based on U.S. national data collected in 1997, 55 percent of an average child's week was spent eating, sleeping, or in personal care (Hofferth and Sandberg 2001). Fifteen percent of their time was spent in school or day care. The remaining 30 percent of the child's time was discretionary. Of this discretionary time, 29 percent was used for free play, 24 percent for television viewing, and 18 percent in structured activities. The remainder of their time was used for art or educationrelated activities, housework, or conversation.

See also:Childcare; Computers and Family; Division of Labor; Dual-Earner Families; Family Life Education; Family Rituals; Family Roles; Family Strengths; Global Citizenship; Housework; Industrialization; Leisure; Life Course Theory; Play; Resource Management; Retirement; Television and Family; Work and Family


bond, james t.; galinsky, e.; and swanberg, j. e. (1998).the 1997 national study of the changing workforce. new york: the families and work institute.

coltrane, s. (2000). "research on household labour: modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work." journal of marriage and the family. 62:1208–1233.

daly, k. j. (1996). families and time: keeping pace in ahurried culture. thousand oaks ca: sage.

galinsky, e. (1999). ask the children: what america'schildren really think about working parents. new york: william morrow.

gillis, j. (1996). a world of their own making: myth, ritual and the quest for family values. new york: basic books.

jacobs, j. and gerson, k. (1998). "who are the over-worked americans?" review of social economy 4:442–459.

hofferth, s. l., and sandberg, j. f. (2001). "how americanchildren spend their time." journal of marriage and the family. 63:295–308.

levine, r. v. (1988). "the pace of life across cultures." inthe social psychology of time: new perspectives, ed. j. e. mcgrath. newbury park ca: sage.

perry-jenkins, m.: repetti, r. l.: and crouter, a. (2000)."work and family in the 1990's." journal of marriage and the family 62:981–998.

pleck, j. (1997). "paternal involvement: levels, sources, and consequences." in the role of the father in child development, ed. m. e. lamb. new york: john wiley and sons.

robinson, j. p., and godbey, g. (1997). time for life: thesurprising ways americans use their time. university park, pa: the pennsylvania state university press.

statistics canada. (1999). overview of the time use of canadians in 1998. ottawa. catalogue no. 12f0080xie.

teachman, j. d.; tedrow, l. m.; and crowder, k. d.(2000). "the changing demography of america's families." journal of marriage and the family 62:1234–1246.

whitrow, g. j. (1988). time in history. oxford: oxforduniversity press.