Virtual Time: The Processuality of the Cyberweek

  • Michel S. Laguerre


Just as virtual space serves as one aspect of the infrastructure of the digital city and serves as the site of its characteristic social formations, virtual time rhythms the practices of the digital city’s inhabitants in ways related to, yet different from, the rhythms imposed by the temporal conventions of the real city. Virtuality thus requires a reconceptualization of time and the various units of the civil calendar—the day, week, month, and year. It requires a concept of virtual time, as distinguished from both so-called “real” or “objective” time and from the divisions of the civil and religious calendars.1 Here, to map out the sociological dimension of virtual time in the digital city, I select the virtual week as the unit of analysis—the cyberweek. Unlike the civil week, the cyberweek is characterized by what might be called “cybertiming” and “flextiming,” consequences of the ways in which computers have modified both when and where work and nonwork activities are carried out.


Temporal Boundary Time Zone Labor Time Hybrid Logic Time Fragmentation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Jodi B. Cohen, Time, Space, Form and the Internet. Editor and Publisher 129(19), 1996: 28–29.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    According to Walker and Sheppard, “telepresence is the enabling of human interaction at a distance, creating a sense of being present at a remote location,” p. 1. G.R. Walker and P.J. Sheppard (eds), Telepresence: The Future of Telephony. In Telepresence. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999, pp. 1–13. See also, J. Baal-Schem and D. Shinar, The Telepresence Era: Global Village or “Media Slums”? IEEE Technology and Society Magazine Spring 1998: 28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 4.
    Starr Roxanne Hiltz and Murray Turoff, The Network Nation. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993, p. 37.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    This is the way it has been used by Joe Childley to describe time spent by Canadian students interacting over the net with friends and family and thereby reducing their phone bills while keeping in contact with people in other cities and other countries. Joe Chidley, Cyber Time: Living by the Credo “Boot up, log on and connect,” University Students are mounting a technorevolution. Maclean’s 109(48), 25 November 1996: 68–69.Google Scholar
  5. Likewise Sean Cubitt sees cybertime as “another dimension of web communication.” Sean Cubitt, Multimedia. In Unspun: Key Concepts for Understanding the World Wide Web edited by Thomas Swiss. New York: New York University Press, 2000, p. 185. “Internet time,” measured by an “Internet clock,” is supposed to provide to all on-line users the same time, whether they are in New York, Tokyo, or Paris. This universal virtual time would presumably do away with the time zones that require time translation from one zone to another.Google Scholar
  6. David Moschella, Why It’s Time for a New Way to Handle Time on the Net. Computerworld 33(14), 5 April 1999: 31;Google Scholar
  7. Mark Gibbs, Internet Time: Old Vine, New Bottles. Network World 15(46), 16 November 1998: 94;Google Scholar
  8. Nikhil Hutheesing, Space Jam. Forbes, 163(10) 17 May 1999: 45; The New York Times quotes one of its informants as saying: “Our classical notion of time that we’ve inherited from the industrial age does not fit with the way we live now.… Time zones made a lot of sense when we stayed in one zone. Now I find I’m living on CNN time rather than my local time. I can call you back at the end of the hour, but I have no idea which hour it is.” Amy Harmon, It’s @786. Do You Know Where Your Computer Is? New York Times, Sunday, 7 March 1999, Section 4, Col. 5, p. 2. Struebing explains how the borders of time zones have collapsed in the new regime of Internet time. She notes that “the internet recognizes no boundaries, including time.”Google Scholar
  9. Laura Struebing, Internet-Based Research Breaks through Barriers of Language and Time. Quality Progress 30(6), 1997: 17. Internet time has also been used in a more restricted fashion in the cornputer industry, where it means “something like dog years, denoting the ever-accelerating speeds of micro-processors, data transmission and startup companies going public.” Some authors think of Internet time as “web time compression” to indicate the shorter time span of “web developer patience” for the development of a product and the longer time span of “web user patience” 5.Google Scholar
  10. Tom Thomas, Application Development in Web Time: Think of It Like Dog Years. InfoWorld 18(13), 1996: 63;Google Scholar
  11. see also, Claudia Graziano, There is no time like Web time. Informationweek 766, 20–27 December 1999: 102. For Douglis, Chapin, and Isaak, “the term ‘internet time’ has been used to refer to the speed with which companies bring new products and ideas to market. In internet time, new generations of products come out every few months rather than every few years.”Google Scholar
  12. Fred Douglis, Steve Chapin and Jim Isaak, Internet Research on Internet Time. Computer 31(11), 1998: 76–78. Cusumano and Yoffie show how Internet time has called for different temporal rules in the management of the modern firm. They note that “the apparent compression of time is only one dimension of life in and around the Internet. For us, competing on Internet time is about moving rapidly to new products and markets; becoming flexible in strategy, structure, and operations; and exploiting all points of leverage for competitive advantage.”Google Scholar
  13. Michael A. Cusumano and David B. Yoffie, Competing on Internet Time: Lessons from Netscape and its Battle with Microsoft. New York: Free Press, 1998, p. 6. It is implied that Internet time has imploded the traditional structure of the week, on the one hand, and has contributed to the existence of the virtual week known as “the ‘web weeks’ business cycles,” on the other hand.Google Scholar
  14. David Bollier (ed.), The Networked Society: How Technologies Are Transforming Markets, Organizations, and Social Relationships. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 1997, p. 9. In fact, we are told that “Netscape (Navigator), Sun (Java), and Microsoft (Windows NT) have all exploited the web weeks cycle to establish their products as the ubiquitous, preferred standard software for the network.” Ibid., p. 9. Clark argues that “many people are now managing their businesses in a new shorter time measure, ‘internet years’” and proclaims that “we are living in Internet time.”Google Scholar
  15. Graham Clark, Managing your Retail Business in Internet Time. Chain Store Age 72(10), 1996: 112. The concept of Internet years is not based on planetary motions, but is somewhat subjective because it is related to one’s business cycle which is, speedwise, different from the operation of business in conventional and real time. The very notion of Internet years is challenged by Goldberg, who notes that “you remember internet years. It was the new measurement of time that said all market dynamics happen 2–4 times faster on the web. As a result, companies rushed products to market as fast as they could. … Internet years were decidedly unnatural … the concept of Internet years is dead.”Google Scholar
  16. Aaron Goldberg, A Stitch in Time: Internet Years are Dead. MC Technology Marketing Intelligence 18(7), 1998: 16. Vigneault presents three noteworthy objections to the idea of Internet clock as proposed by Swatch: First, you can’t convert your local time to internet time without using the GMT [Greenwich Mean Time]. Internet time is based on Central European Wintertime, as used in Biel, Switzerland (home of Swatch)—which is one time zone east of Greenwich, England—So where do the “no time zones” and “no geographical borders” jingles come from? Second, internet time is based on 1000 “beats” per day, 000 to 999; each beat is 86.4 seconds. Internet time aligns exactly with regular time only once every 7 minutes and 12 seconds, and can differ by almost one and a half minutes. Third, claiming that internet time is “the same all over the world” is misleading. By raising the issue, it is implied that GMT isn’t constant worldwide. In fact, GMT-the time of Greenwich—is equally independent of where you are standing. Internet time just moves the reference meridian from Greenwich to Biel.Google Scholar
  17. Gregory S. Vigneault, Internet Time: Why Switch for Swatch. Computing in Science and Engineering 1(3), 1999: 5. Kilpatrick adds his own objection to Swatch Internet Time, “that the day of the week is not embodied in the time system itself.”Google Scholar
  18. Alex Kilpatrick, Internet Time: Switch for Swatch. Computing in Science and Engineering 1(4), 1999: 5.Google Scholar
  19. 6.
    Stephen Graham and Simon Marvin, Telecommunications and the City: Electronic Spaces, Urban Places. New York: Routledge, 1996, p. 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 7.
    M.L. Moss, Telecommunications, World Cities and Urban Policy. Urban Studies 24, 1987: 536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 8.
    N. Negroponte, Being Digital. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1995, p. 193.Google Scholar
  22. 9.
    On the notion of “time transcended,” see Barbara Adam, Time and Social Theory. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990, p. 127.Google Scholar
  23. 11.
    A. Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity. Oxford: Polity Press, 1990, p. 53.Google Scholar
  24. 12.
    Mark Hepworth, Information Technology and the Global Restructuring of Capital Markets. In Collapsing Space and Time, edited by Stanley D. Brunn and Thomas R. Leinbach. New York: HarperCollins Academic, 1991, p. 135.Google Scholar
  25. 13.
    A. Failla and S. Bagnara, Information Technology, Decision, Time. Social Science Information 31(4), 1992: 669–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 14.
    Saxena, S. and P. Mokhtarian, The Impact of Telecommuting on the Activity Spaces of Participants. Geographical Analysis 29(2), 1997: 124–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 15.
    Gabriela Paolucci, The Changing Dynamics of Working Time. Time and Society 5(2), 1996: 145–167;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. C. Hakim, Trends in Flexible Workforce. Employment Gazette 95, 1987: 549–560;Google Scholar
  29. P.P. Jovanis, Telecommunication and Alternative Work Schedules: Options for Managing Transit Travel Demand. Urban Affairs Quarterly 2, 1983: 167–189;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. F. Kinsman, The Telecommuters. Guilford: Biddles Ltd, 1987;Google Scholar
  31. S. McRae, Flexible Working Time and Family Life. Worcester: Billing and Sons Ltd, 1989.Google Scholar
  32. 16.
    Paul Adams, Bringing Globalization Home: A Homeowner in the Information Age. Urban Geography 20(4), 1999: 356–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 17.
    Michael Shapiro and Deanne Neaubauer, Spatiality and Policy Discourse: Reading the Global City. In Contending Sovereignties: Redefining Political Community edited by R.B.J. Walker and Saul H. Mendlovitz. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1990, pp. 97–124.Google Scholar
  34. 19.
    Paul Virilio, Pure War. New York: Semiotex(e), 1983.Google Scholar
  35. 20.
    Eviatar Zerubavel, Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  36. 21.
    E.P. Thompson, Time, Work Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism. Past and Present 38, 1967, 56–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 22.
    Lawrence Wright, Clockwork Man. London: Elek, 1968;Google Scholar
  38. George Woodcock, The Tyranny of the Clock. Politics 1, 1994, 265–266.Google Scholar
  39. 23.
    On the sociological ramifications of the relations between information technology and time, see Heejin Lee and Jonathan Liebenau, Time and the Internet at the Turn of the Millennium. Time and Society 9(1), 2000: 43–56;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. S.R. Barley, On Technology, Time and Social Order: Technologically Induced Change in the Temporal Organization of Radiological Work. In Making Time: Ethnographies of High-Technology Organizations edited by F.A. Dubinskas. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988, pp. 123–169;Google Scholar
  41. and H. Lee, Time and Information Technology: Monochronicity, Polychronicity and Temporal Symmetry. European Journal of Information Systems 8(1), 1999: 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 24.
    Barbara Adam, Modern Times: The Technology Connection and its Implications for Social Theory. Time and Society 1(2), 1992: 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 26.
    Manuel Castells, The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
  44. 27.
    Marlena Corcoran, Digital Transformations of Time: The Aesthetics of the Internet. Leonardo 29(5), 1996: 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 28.
    Arno Borst, The Ordering of Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993, p. 128.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Michel S. Laguerre 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel S. Laguerre
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations