time use: a Lingua Franca article from beyond the grave
http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9711/9711.fn.html
LEISURE WORLD In 1990, when Juliet Schor began researching how much time Americans =
spend working, it was hard to imagine a sleepier topic. Labor =
economists believed the question long settled: Economic growth and =
labor-saving technology were gradually ushering Americans into an =
arcadia of ever-increasing leisure. But Schor’s work dealt a blow to =
that consensus. When The Overworked American (Basic) appeared in =
1992, with its explosive finding that the average American was =
working a full month more a year than in 1969, Schor found herself =
the closest a Harvard economist can come to being a national =
sensation. Soon she was returning calls from The New York Times and =
Newsweek. Even the Weekly World News did a story. The book quickly =
became a national best-seller. The University of Chicago made it =
required reading in its undergraduate core curriculum.
And then in May 1997, the Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell =
Hochschild added her own contribution to the overwork hypothesis. Her =
book, The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home & Home Becomes Work =
(Metropolitan), was promptly splashed on the covers of Newsweek, The =
New York Times Magazine, and U.S. News and World Report. (Hochschild =
found the latter’s coverage so sensationalist that she professed to =
be “horrified” in a letter to the editor.) In academe, time is now =
anything but a sleepy subject–and, if these scholars are right, =
anything but available to the rest of us.
Unnoticed by the indignant overworked, however, was another book =
published at the same time as Hochschild’s: Time for Life: The =
Surprising Ways Americans Use Their Time (Penn State), by University =
of Maryland sociologist John P. Robinson and Penn State professor of =
leisure studies Geoffrey Godbey. With considerable aplomb, it =
threatens to force the overwork thesis into retirement. The book =
begins with the authors’ observation that “our counterintuitive =
findings have sometimes made us feel like the isolated boy who dared =
to point out that the emperor…was wearing no clothes.” It goes on =
to declare that, contra Schor and Hochschild, the average American =
enjoys an hour more free time per day now than in the 1960s.
What gives? This is one cold war you can blame on d=E9tente. In =
graduate school at the University of Michigan in the early 1960s, co- =
author Robinson helped launch the first international social survey =
to go behind the Iron Curtain. Time use was chosen as the survey’s =
focus; among other advantages, time was the most politically neutral =
subject anyone could think of. The next step was to devise the most =
reliable methodology for soliciting data. So the Michigan =
sociologists distributed “time diaries,” in which subjects in twelve =
countries–including 1,244 individuals in the United States–recorded =
their every movement over the course of a single day in 1965. Thus =
began Robinson’s long and productive career in time studies. In 1975, =
he administered an improved time-use survey to 2,406 Americans. Ten =
years later, he collected 5,358 more time diaries.
Over the years, time diaries have proved especially adept at =
revealing differences between how people spend their time and how =
they think they spend it. Most particularly, they suggest that people =
routinely overestimate the amount of time they devote to a given =
activity–work, for example. In fact, Robinson and Godbey claim, the =
time diaries show that in nearly every conceivable demographic group =
Americans have more leisure time on their hands than ever before. =
(Those with graduate educations, take note, are practically the only =
exceptions.) To bolster their case, they present some 31 tables and =
19 appendices in the 367 dense pages of their book.
If Schor arrived at different results, it’s partly because she used =
different data: Her numbers on working hours come from the Bureau of =
Labor Statistics, which usually relies on asking people how much they =
worked in the previous week–rather than on time cards or time =
diaries. Schor readily acknowledges that time diaries represent an =
improvement in certain respects over Labor Department data; she =
herself used Robinson’s time diaries to estimate the hours spent by =
women on housework. “But with time diaries,” she argues, “you’re =
giving up a consistent representative sample over longer periods of =
time.” She argues that the decline in work hours Robinson found =
between 1965 and 1975 is due to the biased character of his 1965 =
sample group, which, in order to match those of the other =
participating countries, restricted itself to urban families in which =
the head of the household was employed. As a result, she says, the =
sample was “whiter, more affluent, and more employed than the actual =
population.” Schor points out that between 1975 and 1985, when =
Robinson’s sample base was more representative, he found little =
change in the number of working hours. During this very period, adds =
Schor, “involuntary underemployment” was becoming an important =
structural feature in the U.S. economy, rendering the concept of more =
free time a cruel misnomer for many. “His whole story is about a ten- =
year period and a statistical artifact!” she cries in exasperation.
Unruffled, Robinson replies that the discrepancies between his =
earlier and later samples are more apparent than real–that, for =
example, there are no noticeable differences in leisure time between =
blacks and whites. He says he controls for underemployment to make =
sure that a lack of work is not misconstrued as leisure. And he adds, =
“We’re beginning to get some stuff out on the 1990s data, and we find =
pretty much a continuation of trends that we found earlier.”
Hochschild’s central objection to Time for Life is simpler. “People =
who hang in for highly time-consuming time diaries,” she says, are =
precisely those who have the most time on their hands–a sampling =
bias if there ever was one. But Time for Life counters with one of =
its most fascinating claims: Much the way the controversial Sex in =
America survey of a few years ago discovered that masturbation was =
more frequent among those who had plenty of sexual intercourse, =
Robinson and Godbey report that the more busy people are the more =
likely they are to take on additional activities.
Time for Life is littered with such ironies and paradoxes. Indeed, if =
its findings are correct, the volume should force sociologists to =
view time’s qualities–it overlaps, it stretches, it contracts, it =
disappears–with the same wonder as theoretical physicists. It will =
charge them with explaining, for one thing, why Americans feel more =
rushed than ever before, even though their free time supposedly has =
increased.
So how do we know who’s right? How do you factor the time taken out =
of a salaryman’s ten-hour day for a quick jaunt to the corner =
newsstand or a leisurely lunch? Should the scholarly chrononaut make =
a statistical correction for downturns in the business cycle, when =
wageworkers are vulnerable to layoffs and decreased overtime? Schor =
gives the business cycle paramount importance in her calculations, =
while Robinson and Godbey claim it exerts little influence on overall =
time patterns. Schor counts the hours officially spent at work (9 to =
5, for example), while the time diarists have no problem counting =
gossip sessions around the watercooler as leisure time. Ordinary =
Americans may be finding time for work, or they may be finding time =
for leisure. We won’t know which until sociologists agree on how to =
find time in the first place.
RICK PERLSTEIN