The Culture of Time and Space in Emma

Dylan Richards

Emma, by Jane Austen, was not written specifically for the discussion of time. Time and space, however, enter into the discussion when modern readers have to understand how the characters in the novel understood their world because their concept of time and space differed greatly from the modern perception.

The concept of space during the time period in which Emma was written is radically different from today. Emma’s sister, Isabella lived in London, which was sixteen miles away, but was “beyond her daily reach.” (Austen, 9) Today such a distance would mean that Emma could see her sister every day, but at the turn of the century it restricted visits to only Christmas. Even more radical of a change in perception of distance from the modern one is when Miss Taylor gets married and moves a half mile away from Emma. In modern times this would be absolutely no inconvenience to a relationship, as automobiles, telephones, and email all make distances many times that seem small.

The concept of wealth in terms of space has also changed. Before, amount of land that a family owned was an evaluator of social wealth and class, but that is not the exact case in today’s world. An apartment in Manhattan would be worth much more than and area of land that is physically much larger. This concept of space drives Emma to push Harriet’s attention away from Mr. Martin and towards Mr. Elton. Emma does this only because Mr. Martin is of the class of yeomen farmers, and doesn’t actually own the land he farms.

Time in Emma’s day was also thought about radically differently than it is today. Especially to the leisure class, which Emma was a member of, time was more or less indistinct and imprecise. While clocks and watches have been around for several hundred years before this, exact times are rarely mentioned in the book because Emma and those like her have very little need for an exact time.

Information during this time period also lacked the immediacy with which bits of news or gossip now spread. News from friends and family had to come via letters, which took days or weeks to deliver, and news from the outside world took months to reach Hartfield. Today events from around the globe are known of instantly. The advent of new technologies like Facebook and Twitter allow an even greater degree of instantaneous communication in between individuals. Communication has become much more frequent. But at the same time it has lost an element of personal connection that one might feel by writing a letter. A handwritten letter has always meant more to me than an email or Facebook message, and in Emma’s time letters were especially cherished because other ways of communicating over long distance were scarce.

Individual’s concepts of time and space during the eighteen hundreds and during modern times are very different. An understanding of this difference is key to understanding society in the early eighteen hundreds, just as it is key to understanding our current society.

Austen, Jane. Emma. New York: Penguin. 1815.

The Difference Between Relationships in Jane Austen's "Emma" and Those of Today

The relationships and communication in Emma’s time period differed from our post-modern one because of the realities of distance and the limitations of technology. Today’s technological advances are making it easier to communicate across larger distances and to connect with those we would not have originally had the opportunity to meet. For Emma, her community consisted only of those immediately surrounding her. Today, space between here and there is not a problem when there are cars, planes, telephones, and computers that can narrow the gap. This shift lead to an increase in quantity over quality.

In Emma, a person had a small, limited circle of friends and family. Slower transportation, communication and even unpredictable weather conditions kept people at great distances apart. A person was dealt their circle of acquaintances and then made the best of it. It was trying for people to be around Emma’s father was a well-meaning pessimist, finding gloom and fault in every situation, but who offered unsolicited advice, thinking that he alone knows best. But people had to be tolerant of his tendencies. They had to develop patience with those they found frustrating and had to remain civil. People took the time to develop their relationships and really know each other. Even though their visits and communications were limited compared to those of today, the quality which was packed into the small amount of the time spent together was much greater. Time spent together was precious and was treated as such. More work was put into relationships, because they weren’t disposable.

Today we have a large, limitless circle of acquaintances. Thanks to modern transportation, telephones and the Internet, connecting with people is easier than ever. Instead of taking what is dealt, people can find others that match their personality by joining clubs or interest groups, or by going bar hopping or speed dating. There is endless opportunity. If a relationship isn’t working, you can leave it without causing a scandal or committing a societal faux pas. Just block their number, stop visiting, delete them from your Facebook and move on. Instead of being tolerant, we just shuffle the deck, because there are hundreds more “single and looking” waiting to find and be found.

Postmodern relationships look very much like this. They are not necessarily concerned with the other party. They just consider what is best for number one. They ask: “Is this relationship working for me?” “Is this person meeting my needs?” Gone is the tolerance and understanding. Since postmodernists don’t believe in absolute truth or rigid, black-and-white moral standards, they are non-committal. Technology offers limitless options: if you don’t like someone, you can always meet somebody new. It also means that time spent together is no longer a luxury, but an expectation taken for granted. People can remain connected no matter where they are, decreasing the quality of good company and conversation. We are constantly updating our statuses and checking in on others’ recent news feeds. We know what is going on in each others' lives but not what is happening in each others' heads or hearts.

Austen, Jane, Steven Marcus, and Victoria Blake. Emma. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2004. Print.

How technological advancements since 1800 have affected time and space:

I call my grandmother once a week to talk to her and to keep her updated on my life. This week she told me about my great-great-grandfather. When he was 17 years old, he immigrated to America from Belgium by himself. His family was ensured of his safe arrival by a letter that took months to deliver. As I listened to the story my grandmother was telling me, I reflected on how much technology has changed since the 1800‘s. I realized that if I traveled to America from Belgium, my family would know of my safe arrival within hours.

Technology has advanced a considerable amount in the past 200 years. The story my grandmother told me reminded me of how technology affects the characters in Jane Austen’s Emma. The characters in Emma respond significantly different to technology then how society interacts with and views technology today. The technology available in the age in which Emma is set forces the characters to interact with time and space in a way remarkably different then how technology causes citizens of the 21st century to interact with time and space.

For Emma Woodhouse, a letter is the only correspondence readily available from people who live more then a few miles away from her home. Since the 1800’s, technology has altered the time it takes for people to communicate. In recent years, communication is virtually instant. I often find myself sending text messages to the people I love just to say, “Hello,” or to see how they are doing. The instantaneity behind communication in recent years is taken for granted; however, in Emma Woodhouse’s time, communication takes time, and a letter is cherished by its receiver and even by the entire society. Advancements in technology have modified communication so that it is virtually effortless, instant, and assumed.

In the 1800’s, a 16 mile journey took about half a day to complete; however, in 2011, a 16 mile journey can be about completed in 20 minutes. The technological advancements in the past 200 years have changed the how people interact with space. My family lives about 30 miles from the university I attend, and I have the opportunity of visiting my family about every other weekend. This is a luxury I rely on. Emma Woodhouse’s father sees his daughter Isabella, who lives 16 miles away in London, about once a year. Technological advancements have allowed for relationships to be maintained over great spaces.

While my great-great-grandfather was alive, he traveled in a horse and buggy when he was a child, traveled in a car in the middle of his life, and flew in an airplane to Florida when he was an elderly man. The technological advancements in my great-great-grandfather’s life were huge, and I am looking forward to the technological advancements in my lifetime. Technology is seemingly continuously changing, and the world my great-great-grandchildren will be living in 200 years from now is unfathomable to the people in my generation.

Austen, Jane. Emma. New York: Penguin. 1815. Print.

Public vs. Private Time

According to Steven Kern in The Culture of Time and Space, artists and writers around the turn of the century sought to show through their work the increasing disparity of public and private time. While clocks had been in use for some time before the early 1900’s, the birth of modern technology around that era established a need for precise public time. The strict forward march of the new public time created a tension between the way governing bodies and corporations viewed time and the way time was viewed by individuals. Kern says in his book, “In a diary entry of 1922 Kafka commented on the maddening discordance between public and private time. ‘It’s impossible to sleep, impossible to wake, impossible to bear life or, more precisely, the successiveness of life. The clocks don’t agree. The inner one rushes along in a devilish or demonic-in any case inhuman-way while the outer one goes, falteringly, its accustomed pace.’” (Kern, 17)

What Kafka experienced at the turn of the century was the result of modernization pushing public time onto a stricter schedule than in the past, and as a result society began to demand more of the individual’s time that made up the public time. Before the advent of modern technology, society ran off of an agrarian schedule. Work began at sunrise and stopped at sunset. Public and private time had set definitions; no one was expected to plow a field at night.

However, with new technologies came changes to the centuries old way of life. Electricity, light bulbs, factories, and the accurate clock changed the average worker from someone who worked based on natural limitations of light to one that worked based on the limitations of their own stamina. As society became increasing dependent on accurate time, time allowed for individuals began to suffer.

Today, new technologies have also affected how we view time. The cell phone, the internet, and personal electronic devices have effectively completed the social transformation begun hundreds of years ago. At the turn of the 20th century there was a tension between public and private time. At the turn of the 21st century public and private time have become almost inseparable. Most people are now chronic multitaskers as shown in the documentary Digital Nation, but this is just a consequence of the intertwining of public and private time. Whereas in the past work was constrained to a set place and time, people now must check their emails constantly for new developments. Essentially the work day doesn’t end. A consequence of this is that private time has also invaded public time. Facebook, google, etc. has allowed a reverse assault on time that once was viewed as strictly for productivity. For example, while I am writing this blog post I am on Facebook and listening to music. In our modern society borders that once existed between the time which we use for ourselves versus for others has been abolished, and it will be interesting to see where we go from here.

Digital Nation. Dir. Rachel Dretzin. Perf. Douglas Rushkoff. Frontline, 2010. Documentary.

Kern, Stephen. The Culture of Time and Space: 1880 - 1918. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Univ., 2003.

How an Increasing Dependence on Relative Knowledge Affects Our Worldview

“In An Introduction to Metaphysics (1903) Henri Bergson approached the subject of the fluid nature of time by distinguishing two ways of knowing: relative and absolute. The former, impoverished kind is achieved by moving around an object or by coming to know it through symbols or words that fail to render its true nature. Absolute knowledge is achieved by experiencing something as it is from within. This absolute knowledge can only give by intuition, which he defined as “the kind of intellectual sympathy by which one place oneself within an object in order to coincide with what is unique in it and consequently inexpressible.”

The world is becoming increasingly dependent on technology. As we draw closer to complete dependency on technology, we begin to adjust our outlook to match that of the objective observation required of scientific progress. Modern science has greatly affected our view and understanding of the world. It’s a relatively new thing to base our perspective of the world solely on science. With this perspective, we’ve been able to make advances in technology. As Bergson says, relative knowledge is obtained through observation and analysis. Science is really good at utilizing relative knowledge. Science is great for answering the how’s: how is it moving, how does it work, etc. That is why we have the technology that we use today. This viewpoint of relativity presents a problem, however.  When we try to use this method for answering the ‘how’s’ in life in order to find answers to our ‘why’s,’ we find that it cannot be done. There is something inexpressible about what we are trying to learn. Bergson uses the term “intuition” to explain how we achieve the absolute knowledge that is associated with the inexpressible.

Our dependency on relative knowledge and truth has crippled our understanding of reality. We begin to think that everything can be defined the way that science defines things. The problem is that absolute knowledge does not come from observation, but from inner, essentially inexpressible experience. Bergson describes this process as an “intellectual sympathy”, an intuition, which is no less true than observable facts, just more difficult to articulate. However, since this process is not necessarily repeatable by scientific standards or universal in every circumstance, it is difficult to "prove.”

The scientific community and thus the world has grown fond of dismissing everything that is indescribable, unrepresentable, or unprovable as farce. It is because we want to be in control. We want to know every bit of something so that we can dominate it. With technology we have learned to dominate that which can be defined. We have perfected the art of manipulation. This leads to the desire to manipulate our reality. Reality, however, is not defined by metaphors or variables. Reality is only something that can be experienced. Since we are departing from this view of life and entering into one where we can define and control and describe reality, we can alter our reality to whatever standards that we deem suitable. We have become so caught up in believing in the altered reality that we do not fully exist in the true one. We are not fully present. We are chasing day-dreams to make us feel like we are in control, but our lives end up being empty of real purpose or meaning.

Postmodernism is defined in Noebel’s Understanding the Times as “The “anti-worldview” worldview characterized by skepticism of absolute truth and morality.” It is essentially based on relativism. We become so caught up in the belief of “what you see is what you get” that we start to get so that other people will see and so that we will hopefully become. We become focused on appearing rather than being and that is what separates us from absolute truth and reality.

Kern, Stephen. "The Nature of Time." The Culture of Time and Space 1880-1918. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1983. Print.

Noebel, David A. "Glossary." Understanding the times. Manitou Springs, CO: Summit, 2006. Print.

Why face-to-face communication should not be replaced by electronic communication:

The documentary Digital Nation displays how the citizens of the world are constantly in contact with other people (Digital Nation). A person can use his cell phone to get in contact with virtually whomever he desires. Simply pressing a few buttons allows a person to get in contact with another person in a variety of different ways. However, it wasn’t that long ago when the only instant form of communication was face-to-face. This lead to people having a limited, bounded number of people that they knew, and could communicate with. It’s amazing to reflect on the fact that this was only about a hundred years ago. At the turn of the 20th century there was significantly less information and ideas in the world; there were less people to share ideas with, and less people to form relationships with. People living in 21st century; however, can have relationships and can communicate with as many people as they desire.

In addition to the idea that people in the 21st century are constantly in contact with one another, the documentary Digital Nation describes a growing trend of a generation of people who frequently multitask. There is a increasing tendency for people to lead a rushed, hurried life where they believe the only way to accomplish all they need to do is to multitask. People have the ability to email, surf the internet, instant message, text message, and carry on a phone conversation all at the same time. There is a growing trend for humans to feel as though they are always connected and so many electronic devices and people to keep up with provides added pressure to multitask. Multitasking seems as though it is beneficial; however, Digital Nation presents a stunningly profound argument backed up with scientific research about that those who multitask. Although those who multitask generally believe that they are accomplishing more while multitasking, they are actually consistently having slowed reaction times and are accomplishing less (Digital Nation).

What are the consequences of such a digital nation where immediate human contact is taken for granted? The outcome is that people are losing their communication skills. Face-to-face communication is essential in developing communication skills and is more effective. Without it, people rely fully on words. Electronic communication provides only one source of eliciting what the person you are communicating with is feeling- words. Face-to-face communication allows body language, inflections of the voice, the person’s appearance, and the person's personality to be observed. Yes, there are benefits to communicating electronically, for instance if the person you need to communicate with lives 7,000 miles away, but one should not fully rely on electronic communication. I know that I don’t want to live in a world where emoticons replace facial expressions, exclamation points replace gestures, and typing on a keypad replaces the words coming out of my mouth. In-person communication may seem outdated to the new generation of electronic communicators, but it should not be lost due to technological advancements, and the convenience factor.

Digital Nation. Dir. Rachel Dretzin. Perf. Douglas Rushkoff. Frontline, 2010. Documentary.