What if I told you that the clock was alive, and has to not only the power but also the motive to:
We're going to use the clock today to learn something about emerging technologies. The clock is useful because it's origin is unknown to most, which allows us to reflect upon it with fresh eyes, without bias. They say that retrospect is 20/20, but that's not always accurate depending on the context, if history is a road with many forks, where a single path is taken at each split. Then reflecting back give us the illusion of a single path since we can no longer see all the forks. Take a well known piece of transformative technology such as Gutenberg's press. You're probably not an expert on the matter, but likely know that by making text and books easily and cheaply reproducibly, the press lead to an explosion of ideas impacting many parts of European society and then the world. Because it's better know, it easily provokes a well-trodden narrative about the technology, like the one I quickly mentioned. Such a narrative makes it hard for us to imagine other possibilities for the technology and makes it feel like both the invention and its subsequent impact was inevitable and I would argue that's not the case. For one thing the printing presses already existed before Gutenberg's improvements and there were many cultural forces at play that contributed to the impact that the press had. Plush the impact it would have was not predicted at the time.
Back to clocks, how did this tech shape society? The full history of all time-related devices such as the sundials and hours glasses goes way back. Though a watershed moment for clocks was the invention of the escapement, it's the mechanism in the clock that gives it it's precise ticking.
What's important, though, is who invented it and what their motivation was. By who I mean which group of people as we don't know the individual, instead we know it was twelfth-century Benedict monks trying to improve their timekeeping as they had time allotments for many things that made up life in the monastery. Being monks, times of devotion was significant to them, and in fact, they had seven periods of devotion a day. It's understandable better precision in timekeeping would help with their devotions rather than relying upon one of the monks ringing a bell multiple times a day to prompt their rituals.
Once the escapement, hence the clock hand been invented it soon "escapemented" the monastery walls and by the mid-fourteenth century there were many "town" or "public" clocks. The roll-out of the clock did not only increase the precision of timekeeping but changed the notion of time. Conical hours was the time kept by the church and it was pretty rough because it never needed to be exact. for example vigil was from about 2 am to dawn, matin was just a later portion of vigil, lauds was dawn and so obviously would vary with the seasons and so and so forth. Now with an exact measurement of time possible suddenly time was no longer a sequence of events that followed on from one another, but instead a resource that should be spent carefully, a sign of this is what was engraved on many of the early time-pieces like "time is short", "wasting time" etc. Phrases we're familiar with, but we don't feel the need to write onto our clocks. Such a change in society's understanding of time, obviously had social consequences.
But first who pushed for these clocks? It was the merchant class, as timekeeping fit in well with business, they also enjoyed that new time standards gave separation from the church It's not surprising that Italian cities like Venice and Genoa saw the largest boom in clocks since they were famous for trade, and the lives of businesspeople became more regimented than ever.
The church wasn't happy about this. One simple reason is that there were now conflicts in the ringing of bells between the church's time and the town clock's time. As the merchant class gain influence and secular life grew, more often than not the church was forced to change its bell timing not the reverse. There were more theological reasons why the church didn't like the advent of the clock. They were concerned with the public's new conception of time as a challenge to their faith, as time previously was thought to be part of nature and so belonged to God. The new more abstract view of time changed that, so now it belonged to the individual, as merchants started to sell their time directly in hour increments instead of days, it was seen as selling something that belonged to God. The church fought the clock, but ceded ground and the clock is here to stay
The clock became a force for controlling and synchronizing the actions of workers. By introducing regular work hours it also helped pave the way for the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism centuries later.
To bring us back to the silly thought that the clock is alive and has its own motivations. I'm not serious about the alive part obviously, but its accurate that technologies have particular bias embedded in them that can exploit characteristics of the culture they find themselves in, often against the best wises of the inventor. Devote monks set out to produce a device that would help their spiritual pursuits and ended up being most efficient at aiding in monitory activities.
At the same time the clock shrunk oceans by aiding in navigation, pull down the heaves with its uses in astronomy, made money for the rising merchant class, and it betrayed its original inventors by reducing spiritual life.
During the Reformation, a period that saw the catholic church lose its monopoly status over spiritual life in Europe. Martin Luther, a prominent figure in these events, understood what having a bible in every home would mean for the catholic church's power, as if everyone could read God's word for themselves they wouldn't need the churches hierarchies to be the arbiters of spiritual truth. That is to say Luther understood and exploited an inherent bias in the technology of the printing press.
which brings us back to Gutenberg, a devote catholic would have turned in his grave if he learned the way Martin Luther was using his device. Another example of technology betraying its creator.
What can we say about the current time?
This article is still a draft, points I want to expand upon are:
If you got to the end of this in its draft state, thank you. Let me know your thoughts, you can reach me on twitter or reply to the newsletter.