Theoretical Framework for Discussions on Time (pt.1)

The following is a very rough reflection on some of the ideas which I am working with in a greater Master’s Thesis project. I welcome constructive feedback and thoughts, so please leave a comment if you have something interesting to say or have any good questions.


As an historian, time is something that I often hear used as a measurement of distance, like space. It is not uncommon to hear of historical distance as a means of conceptualizing the understanding gap between history and historian. My interest within this project is not in discerning the nature of historical distance as a relationship of authority between historian and subject, but rather as a noted measurement. In my experience, where historical distance is noted, it is often done so with the implied understanding of time as something that can be utilized like space – it can be quantified in years as physical distance is in meters – yet it is often done so with the additional implication that time is not traversable. Time, in this instance of discussion, is a measurement of our reality and is treated as a physical measurement of that reality, albeit one that within which we have restricted mobility. The physical properties of reality function in such a way as to allow movement in three-dimensional space, however time is perceived as a much more limiting axis upon which we move. Because time is experienced by humans as solely a progression “forward” it is increasingly difficult to imagine traversing the axis of time in any other direction. It is this fundamental understanding of time which so intrigued me in my own studies, and it is this point with which I grapple in my own work. In order to unpack my own understandings of the nature of time and its relationship to us as historians, I will first examine some of the foundational texts upon which I have constructed my conceptions.

In his work, Future’s Past: on the Semantics of Historical Time, Reinhart Koselleck proposes his concept of “historical time”. Historical time is something that Koselleck wrestles with in much of his writing. For Koselleck, historical time is a term used to describe the manner in which humanity, in general, understood time – and perhaps more specifically – history. With an emphasis on straightforwardness over exacting precision, historical time can be summarized as the understanding of time as non-cyclical, with a future that is not a recycling of the past. To unpack this, we should also identify the other forms of time that Koselleck uses. Historical time, he argues, differentiates itself from the more commonly understood (and utilized) “natural time”. Natural time, Koselleck posits, is the comprehension and measurement of time via the identification and measurement of natural entities, be they the passage of celestial bodies, the changing of the seasons, or the lives of humans.

For Koselleck, the celestial basis for our understanding of time is inherently tied to the measure of time in chronology. Time measured by natural bodies falls victim of adopting the rhythmic and cyclical nature of those bodies. As time became a measure of the Earth’s rotation, then its revolution around the Sun, then perhaps the revolutions of the moon, the cycles of seasonal change, or the longevity of a human life, it is perceivable that these natural patterns – all of which occur in identifiable repeating instances – lend their own repetitive quality to the system used to measure them. Time under this system of selective repeating trends takes on the totalizing quality of repetition itself. Within this context, events of the past are, like the foundational understanding of naturally repeating phenomena that ground the entire construct of time, bound to repetition.

Historic time, then, is that understanding of time which breaks free from the bounds of repetition. Koselleck argues that this shift from a periodic to an historic time occurred in parallel with western society’s adoption of the concept of “progress”. With the conceptualization of progress came the need to contextualize the manner in which time passed, and more importantly, the relationship that the present had to the past and the future. The future was of particular importance to this shift in thinking. For Koselleck this new system offered a new future, and as John Zammito notes, “A future so radical in its openness and unpredictability [that it] annulled the present utility of past experience.” Koselleck uses Friedrich Perthes’ example of a familial living situation. A house has a child, parent, and grandchild all living under one roof. Before this shift in temporal thinking, all three people understood themselves to be living in the present, their lives occupying the same temporal location, now. The “now” in this situation is simply all of time, as the past and future are states of the present. After the shift to historic time, these three people can perceive themselves as belonging to separate generations – temporal classes – each of which occupy a different portion of time. The child is clearly younger than the parent, and so their experiences will reflect those of someone who is passing through time from a measurably different beginning. A similar thought can be applied to the relationship between the parent and grandparent. Understanding of temporal differences, then, suggest that the speed at which history is occurring is accelerating. This argument for acceleration fits nicely into the rhetoric of progress and the exponential growth of humanity.

Of key interest for me is Koselleck’s argument for the realization of the present as a temporal location. In a system which has an unpredictable future and a non-repeating past, the present ceases to retain its status as an all-encompassing location, and instead becomes the site of transition between the past and future. Koselleck states, “the divide between previous experience and coming expectation opened up, and the difference between past and present increased, so that lived time was experienced as a rupture, as a period of transition in which the new and the unexpected continually happened”


As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts, please leave a comment. I don’t think I will answer questions or respond to comments directly, but I will most definitely take things into consideration as I continue to work through this.

Thanks for reading,

– Alex

Thoughts on Culture – pt.2 – Meaning in the Message

The following is a very rough reflection on some of the ideas which I am working with in a greater Master’s Thesis project. I welcome constructive feedback and thoughts, so please leave a comment if you have something interesting to say or have any good questions.

Within the context of my Thesis work, I am attempting to understand the nature and relationship of “culture” and the material. As a starting premise I would suggest that (select) construction projects of the NSDAP reflect the regime’s unique understanding of its own place within a broader historical framework, as well as the bearer of a unique and perceivable “culture”. My end goal here is to suggest that the structures created or proposed by the NSDAP imply that the National Socialists had a specific understanding of their own place in history, a history which itself was interpreted uniquely by the regime, and that through the construction of these structures there was an attempt to bridge the gap between the current regime and future iterations of itself. My project looks at the structures as architectural works within the context of the early-mid 20th century, the concept of future and the means by which ideas are transmitted though time, and the messages that are transmittable through mediums/time. It is on this last point that I am currently absorbed.

An Info Panel, Nuremberg, Germany.

An Info Panel, Nuremberg, Germany.

For my work, I am looking to better understand and explain the concept of cultural transmission via material mediums. To do this, we can (for this thought) presuppose that buildings can transmit or store ideas/messages. What I am interested in is the form in which these messages are imbued and then received, the traits and general ideas that make up the message. I seek to go beyond the obvious here, I am not suggesting that a building can have a message carved on its surface which directly records a message in text or image, or some other tangible means. I am looking for the ways in which a structure captures an idea in its very essence and is able to express this idea to an audience that is not comprised of its direct creators (By this I mean, the receivers of the message are not those who implanted the message originally, but they may share ideological or historical similarities with the message’s progenitors). This series of ideas/messages I am considering to constitute “culture”.

So finally we get to the point of this post, to determine if we can consider this transmission as “culture”, and what that implies.

This problem is one I have touched upon in my previous post, the issue of defining “culture” for my own uses. Perhaps, then, I should attempt to pin-down some of the thoughts that I consider to make up “culture”, or at least what I consider to be important for the sake of this particular argument.

If we consider the definition of culture which describes it as, “All that which is nonbiological and socially transmitted in a society, including artistic, social, ideological, and religious patterns of behavior, and the techniques for mastering the environment” then we are left with something that is, perhaps, too all-encompassing and grand to really suit the needs of this project. With this understanding, that which composes culture is likely to overlap across many different cultures, possibly even to the point where cultures share almost every aspect, save a small number of traits, with each other. Are these, then, the identifiers for unique culture?

I’ll end with my question for the day:

Can culture be measured by the attributes it does not share with similar cultures?

As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts, please leave a comment. I don’t think I will answer questions or respond to comments directly, but I will most definitely take things into consideration as I continue to work through this.

Thanks for reading,

– Alex

Thoughts on Culture – pt.1 – What’s in a Name?

As a cautionary note, please be aware that this is a fairly rambley, stream-of-thought, my-internal-monologue style of thought

As I sit and write my Thesis, I am constantly having to backtrack and rethink what I am doing. This reexamination is not a result of my arguably (read: “definitely”) terrible lack of ability to spell, nor is it particularly a result of any primal urge to proof-read. Instead, I am regularly uncertain as to what my position is on the whole matter of “culture”, in which my current project deals heavily. The chapter I am currently writing seeks to examine the concept of culture within a National Socialist context. Perhaps it would be best to frame this thought within the greater work of my project.

My Thesis work looks to examine the relationship between time and cultural (for my purposes, “history”) and state-sponsored architectural works within the National Socialist regime. Specifically I want to suggest that the building projects of the National Socialists reflect their unique relationship to historical consciousness. My project covers three aspects of this relationship: the aesthetics of the early to mid 1900s, the National Socialists’ understanding of time, and the conceptions of culture then and now. Currently I am working on the latter of these points.

Back to my consternation. The primary issue I am currently having is wrangling with the concept of culture as a unique and definable thing. For my project I would like to put forth the idea that the ways in which the National Socialists understood themselves as existing within a specific historical ideal and expressed this idea through their architectural works denotes them as the holders of a very specific and uniquely National Socialist culture. I will have an entire chapter dedicated to arguing that the aesthetics of their architecture reinforce this argument (of which I am fairly confident in myself), as well as a chapter on the perceptions of time (which requires the completion of this thought to proceed). Where I am at odds is on the point of a “unique culture”. My problem here is that I myself, as an historian and a thinking assemblage of skin-and-fat, have a very (read: “VERY”) hard time believing that the term “culture” really implies anything worthy of its own word. My feelings on this subject, I have found, are exceedingly hard for me to communicate, particularly with anything beyond wild hand-gestures, grunts, and chirrups. This being said, I’m going to take a risk and try anyway.

I should preface this part of the discussion by first noting that I am coming at this from a very specific background: I am white, identify as a heterosexual male, and am from the higher-end of the lower-class of a western country. I am a university-educated history major who studies an extremely specific historical period (I pretty much exclusively study overtly depressing historical topics). In addition to this, I am also currently attempting to derive my thoughts from my own understandings, avoiding simple regurgitation of the ideas of other, more established thinkers. My reasoning for this is to establish a more raw base from which to examine my own thoughts before digging right into self-dissection. So when I approach this subject, I am at least acutely aware of where my thoughts are coming from.

I have a difficult time accepting the term “culture” as having any real meaning anymore. While I would like to be able to apply it as a label for the combination of sentiments and ideas that the group of people I am studying more-or-less have a consensus about, I find it increasingly difficult to detach the word from its inherently catch-all nature. I have heard the term culture applied to national, ethnic, religious, athletic, social, academic, virtual, distant, and recreational groups. Each time it appears to me to be a simple placeholder for “set of ideas and thoughts that some of these people accept or at least acknowledge as being accepted by others in the group.” Before we get to uppity about “but yes, that is how words work”, I understand that it is, by its nature as a word, a placeholder for an idea. Where I take issue is with the seeming lack of acknowledgment of this in the general use of the word. If we accept, let’s say, that Canadian culture is a thing that is real[1] then I as a Canadian citizen, as a person living in Canada, as someone whose family has lived in Canada for a period of time, should fall under the sway of “Canadian” culture. But what does this mean? To me, “Canadian” culture has such a varied and contradictory assortment of identifiers that it is exceedingly difficult to pin-point what constitutes a coherent narrative of “Canadian” culture. Is it what we see on the Heritage Minutes? What beer commercials promote? Our (apparently) unanimous love of hockey, Timmies, and all things reminiscent of Strange Brew? I’d like to note that the point I am trying to make here is not to lambaste Canadiana[2] but instead to point out the exclusive nature of identifying groups by the things that unite them, specifically when those things are not shared across the entire community they purport to represent.

Continuing this experiment wherein Canadian culture exists as depicted in commercials and stereotypes, can I be part of Canadian culture if I do not like hockey? What about those who like hockey, affordable coffee, and Rick Moranis, but are not from Canada, nor do they reside here? Arguably culture cannot be dictated by geography as this would leave the lingering question of diaspora culture. The scope of the word lends itself to abuse, allowing for such a malleable and all-inclusive definition as to render the word meaningless. There are, perhaps, more appropriate words out there to signify the idea that I have for culture. It has been suggested to me that “community” is perhaps a better label. My understanding of “community” is even less informed than that of culture. To remedy this, I have retrieved two of the versions of the Dictionary of Anthropology that I could get at my school’s library. what follows are the definitions for culture and community from each text.

  • The Anthropological Glossary[3]
    • Culture: “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities acquired by man as a member of society.”
    • Community: “a social group or area in which competition and other interpersonal relations exist; the smallest unit of society capable of independent existence.”
  • Dictionary of Anthropology[4]
    • Culture: “All that which is nonbiological and socially transmitted in a society, including artistic, social, ideological, and religious patterns of behavior, and the techniques for mastering the environment. The term culture is often used to indicate a social grouping that is smaller than a civilization but larger than an industry.”
    • Community: “Mutually dependent families living and working together in a given area and usually in face-to-face association.”

It would appear that where anthropology is concerned, community is largely a geographic concept, relating to the closeness of relationships. Now, arguably these definitions are dated (the books are from 50s and 80s) and do not take into account the pervasiveness of the internet and the ways in which it bridges geographical divides. This being said, I am still unsatisfied with the definition of community as I am more interested, not in the division of people into cultures or communities, but in the concept of culture as a thing which one can have, or be part of. If one can have “community”, I do not believe that it would be the appropriate word to define the concept I am dealing with.

The definitions of culture found in these texts also suffer from the focus on division of people rather than that which defines people (in addition to being pretty antiquated in their definitions). If you would permit me to jump around a bit here, I would like to propose another of my thoughts on the inherent meaning of culture. Remembering our scenario of a specific Canadian culture, we can argue that culture (if this is a facsimile of a “real” culture) is exclusive by-nature. The terms by which culture dictates inclusivity are inherently a response to what members dictate or perceive as that which lies outside of the group. I may not like hockey, but I like Rick Moranis and doughnuts so hey, I’m close enough. This act of acceptance (I find) belies a deeper reliance on the othering of those not deemed appropriate in their actions or beliefs to be part of the culture. When the terms of what constitutes “culture” are expanded to be more inclusive and avoid the issue of inclusive/exclusive it generally expands to such a state as to remove any meaning to the word.

I have found, in my studies and general milling about places, that the ways in which most people I interact with perceive culture through a fairly optimistic/positivist[5] lens, which lends itself to the inclusive understanding of culture that has a meaning and is important. The argument often devolves into a glass-half-full/empty scenario which tends to result in a lot of “well I guess everyone is right.” This is always an interesting conversation and generally helps me to work though my own ideas (which very often lean toward the more pessimistic understanding of things). Unfortunately, this is a problematic issue to have when attempting to argue a point that has two equal sides, but on which you fall pretty exclusively to one side. As I had mentioned above, I generally study some of the more morose historical topics. I say this, but realistically I should add the qualifier more overtly morose historical topics, as the vast summation of human history is pretty violent and awful, but generally we tend to avoid discussing that when we can.[6]

Well i am out of time for today, so perhaps I will wrap-up this post with a few summarizing questions which I am currently thinking about, and for which I have decided to ramble these past few paragraphs.

What is “culture” in the sense of a way of describing people? More specifically, is there such a thing as Canadian/American/German/French/Nazi/Liberal/Kayaking culture? If so, how is it defined? Is culture a definable idea? Bearing in-mind that this is an expression of one of my rough thoughts, is there something I am completely missing in my rambles above?

I’d love to hear your thoughts, please leave a comment. I don’t think I will answer questions or respond to comments directly, but I will most definitely take things into consideration as I continue to work through this thought.

Thanks for reading,

– Alex


1 – the existence of “real” is best left for another discussion.
2 – Strange Brew is a great movie!
3 – Pearson, Roger. Anthropological Glossary. Original ed. Malabar, Fla.: R.E. Krieger Pub., 1985. 54, 60.
4 – Winick, Charles. Dictionary of Anthropology. New York: Philosophical Library, 1956. 126, 144.
5 – I’m fairly certain I am conflating my ideas here. What I mean by this is a sense that things are a certain way, which is what has been said publicly, or is generally understood by most people, and which actively but not overtly attempts to promote a positive and upbeat interpretation of events while avoiding any discussion that the entire framework of understanding being used may depend on a rather grim or horrific principle.
6 – Read: “I am a pessimist”


I claim no rights to the cover image, which is from: