What do you think?
Rate this book
New Critical Idiom
Temporalities
Temporalities presents a concise critical introduction to the treatment of time throughout literature. Time and its passage represent one of the oldest and most complex philosophical subjects in art of all forms, and Russell West-Pavlov explains and interrogates the most important theories of temporality across a range of disciplines.
The author explores temporality's relationship with a diverse range of related concepts, including:
historiography
psychology
gender
economics
postmodernism
postcolonialism
Russell West-Pavlov examines time as a crucial part of the critical theories of Newton, Freud, Ricoeur, Benjamin, and explores the treatment of time in a broad range of texts, ranging from the writings of St. Augustine and Sterne 's Tristram Shandy, to Woolf 's Mrs Dalloway and Stoppard 's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.
This comprehensive and accessible guide establishes temporality as an essential theme within literary and cultural studies today.
The author explores temporality's relationship with a diverse range of related concepts, including:
historiography
psychology
gender
economics
postmodernism
postcolonialism
Russell West-Pavlov examines time as a crucial part of the critical theories of Newton, Freud, Ricoeur, Benjamin, and explores the treatment of time in a broad range of texts, ranging from the writings of St. Augustine and Sterne 's Tristram Shandy, to Woolf 's Mrs Dalloway and Stoppard 's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.
This comprehensive and accessible guide establishes temporality as an essential theme within literary and cultural studies today.
- GenresNonfictionArtAcademic
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2012
4 people are currently reading
81 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
Read
October 21, 2024Russell West-Pavlov starts with a definition of time with which I can almost completely agree: “There is no ‘time’ outside of the multiple ongoing processes of material becoming, the constant transformations, often invisible, that make up the life of apparently inert things. Every ‘thing’ is in fact a process; all these processes, taken together, make up the world as the sum total of its immanent ‘times’.” This definition clearly has a too materialistic tone (more about that later), but West-Pavlov corrects that later in the book: time is simply the world, the cosmos, life itself, and therefore all the processes and interactions that the universe make into a complicated tangle: "all time is lived time, in the sense that time is nothing but the vibrant, pulsing dynamic or life itself: a time immanent to the constantly changing being of things." In a certain sense, he is in line with the early thinking about time of Heraclitus and Aristotle.
What is clear is that with this definition West-Pavlov strongly opposes the idea that time is something external, that it supersedes the world and the processes that are going on in it, as a kind of container, and can be distinguished from it. No, "If everything in the universe is in a state of constant flux, as claimed by Heraclitus, then there is no "separate" time outside the dynamic, processual becomings of things. That dynamic process is temporality itself. "
The main thesis of West Pavlov is that the current prevailing notion of absolute, universal, homogeneous and linear time, as it has set the tone in the modern world especially since Newton, does not do justice to that complicated tangle of temporalities. In fact, it cannibalizes them and this entire book is one big proof of that. “The gradual streamlining of temporality down to universal linear time as the self-evident calibration of human existence has repressed and elided other possible temporal structuring of individual and global existence. It inherently claims, "There is no alternative!" Such elisions have culminated in many cases in wholesale destruction or alternative encodings of existence and concomitant communal practices."
From his background as a specialist in Subaltern Studies, West-Pavlov regularly refers to the example of the temporality of the Australian aborigines that has been almost completely pushed aside by the arrival of Westerners. His vision also has a strong ecological accent, for which he is particularly inspired by Bruno Latour: he repeatedly stresses that a healthy approach to temporality must include both organic and non-organic life.
What particularly appealed to me is that West-Pavlov has clearly immersed himself in the world of "soft system thinking". He quotes Gregory Bateson only once, but it is clear that his thinking really exudes the atmosphere of what Bateson tried to express in, for example, Mind and Nature. And in some chapters the influence of system thinking is clearly tangible: “Things are thus caught in a constantly shifting equilibrium between autopoesis and entropy. We tend to think of death as the endpoint, but in terms of autopoesis, no process ever ends, but merely shades about into new processes or a different sort. Beginnings and ends are both strategies for containing change by establishing narratives that are either determined from the point of departure, or pre-programmed by the point of arrival”.
Yet there are also some down sides to this book. The attentive reader may have already noticed it in the quotes: West-Pavlov uses the notions of "time" and "temporality" interchangeably, almost as synonyms. And he gives strong arguments for that. But in my opinion there is a certain conceptual distinction between the two: the notion of temporality is more related to the experienced time, the special time frame that is connected to very concrete things, processes, interactions, both material and immaterial. In addition, the notion of "time" remains a container concept for me, which, as West-Pavlov points out, is of course very connected to the different temporalities, but at the same time also distinguished from them. That already indicates that the concept of a homogeneous, universal time is not just a delusion.
West-Pavlov himself must, moreover, constantly admit that the notion of homogeneous, universal time continues to dominate our thinking and forces the various temporalities into a subordinate role. The author explains that with a strongly Marxist-colored reading: the Western absolute, Newtonian era is a capitalist invention, it has come to dominate the world in the wake of imperialist capitalism and is still doing so more than ever in our globalized late capitalist time. I'm having a hard time with that rather easy explanation. Mind you, of course there is a connection between the dominance of universal-linear time thinking and the rise of industrial capitalism, but the categories in which West Pavlov expresses himself are, in my opinion, too deterministic and simplistic.
There are other shortcomings in this book. In his chapter on gender subjectivity, for example, he connects linear time with a masculine approach and cyclical, generative and creative time with a feminine (maternal) one. I thought we had passed this kind of simplistic thinking a long time ago. His fierce criticism of postmodernism, as a disguised continuation of modernism, does of course touch ground, but in the end it does not add much to the discussion about temporality.
Because the key question is then: what is his alternative, surely if he concedes that homogeneous, universal and linear time continues to dominate our thinking? This book clearly falls short in that department. It seems as if West-Pavlov believes that simply unmasking the myth of linear thinking is sufficient enough. This results in, for example, almost inimitable, abstract reasoning: “We must rewind this process, reverting from the notion of reified things within segmented time to a notion or immanent time embodied in the dynamic processes of becoming inherent in all beings. This counter-intuitive move reverses a historical progression in which fluid processes have been attributed end-stop characteristics to make them appear as bounded entities within a segmented temporal environment. The sequence of re-conceptualization reverses the sequence of historical mystification.” I do follow what Western Pavlov means by that, but what is lacking here are incentives to translate this into concrete models.
In his chapter on postcolonial temporalities, he does a prudent attempt, where he proposes a model of a forest: instead of the linearly connected universal time, he argues for "entangled multiplanar temporalities", with another reference to the Australian aboriginals. And in his final conclusion he continues: “Producing performative models of a multiplicity or immanent space-times would contribute to restoring ethical relationships not only between human actors but also with the many natural actants of the animal, vegetable and mineral environment. Such instantiations of the "experimental humanities" would understand themselves not as meditations "about" time, but as exemplifications from the creative agency or immanent temporalities themselves. The very temporality of the "experimental humanities" would resonate with the non-linear, unpredictable dynamism of the universe itself in its becoming." Again, this touches ground, but what do you buy with it?
Conclusion: the critical analysis by West-Pavlov about the failure of the modernist notion of universal, linear time is absolutely pertinent, and his plea for taking other, diverse temporalities seriously is justified. Only he does not succeed in proposing a sound, practically applicable alternative and he gets stuck in an abstract discourse. In opposition to this, I find Penelope Corfield's attempt in Time and the Shape of History, with her proposal to combine a kind of triple approach (long continuity, slow changes and disruptions) a much more pragmatic and feasible approach, even though also this model has its limitations. Finally, I must say that I find it very incomprehensible that in a conceptual study on temporalities no reference is made to Reinhart Koselleck nor François Hartog, both epigones of temporality studies.
What is clear is that with this definition West-Pavlov strongly opposes the idea that time is something external, that it supersedes the world and the processes that are going on in it, as a kind of container, and can be distinguished from it. No, "If everything in the universe is in a state of constant flux, as claimed by Heraclitus, then there is no "separate" time outside the dynamic, processual becomings of things. That dynamic process is temporality itself. "
The main thesis of West Pavlov is that the current prevailing notion of absolute, universal, homogeneous and linear time, as it has set the tone in the modern world especially since Newton, does not do justice to that complicated tangle of temporalities. In fact, it cannibalizes them and this entire book is one big proof of that. “The gradual streamlining of temporality down to universal linear time as the self-evident calibration of human existence has repressed and elided other possible temporal structuring of individual and global existence. It inherently claims, "There is no alternative!" Such elisions have culminated in many cases in wholesale destruction or alternative encodings of existence and concomitant communal practices."
From his background as a specialist in Subaltern Studies, West-Pavlov regularly refers to the example of the temporality of the Australian aborigines that has been almost completely pushed aside by the arrival of Westerners. His vision also has a strong ecological accent, for which he is particularly inspired by Bruno Latour: he repeatedly stresses that a healthy approach to temporality must include both organic and non-organic life.
What particularly appealed to me is that West-Pavlov has clearly immersed himself in the world of "soft system thinking". He quotes Gregory Bateson only once, but it is clear that his thinking really exudes the atmosphere of what Bateson tried to express in, for example, Mind and Nature. And in some chapters the influence of system thinking is clearly tangible: “Things are thus caught in a constantly shifting equilibrium between autopoesis and entropy. We tend to think of death as the endpoint, but in terms of autopoesis, no process ever ends, but merely shades about into new processes or a different sort. Beginnings and ends are both strategies for containing change by establishing narratives that are either determined from the point of departure, or pre-programmed by the point of arrival”.
Yet there are also some down sides to this book. The attentive reader may have already noticed it in the quotes: West-Pavlov uses the notions of "time" and "temporality" interchangeably, almost as synonyms. And he gives strong arguments for that. But in my opinion there is a certain conceptual distinction between the two: the notion of temporality is more related to the experienced time, the special time frame that is connected to very concrete things, processes, interactions, both material and immaterial. In addition, the notion of "time" remains a container concept for me, which, as West-Pavlov points out, is of course very connected to the different temporalities, but at the same time also distinguished from them. That already indicates that the concept of a homogeneous, universal time is not just a delusion.
West-Pavlov himself must, moreover, constantly admit that the notion of homogeneous, universal time continues to dominate our thinking and forces the various temporalities into a subordinate role. The author explains that with a strongly Marxist-colored reading: the Western absolute, Newtonian era is a capitalist invention, it has come to dominate the world in the wake of imperialist capitalism and is still doing so more than ever in our globalized late capitalist time. I'm having a hard time with that rather easy explanation. Mind you, of course there is a connection between the dominance of universal-linear time thinking and the rise of industrial capitalism, but the categories in which West Pavlov expresses himself are, in my opinion, too deterministic and simplistic.
There are other shortcomings in this book. In his chapter on gender subjectivity, for example, he connects linear time with a masculine approach and cyclical, generative and creative time with a feminine (maternal) one. I thought we had passed this kind of simplistic thinking a long time ago. His fierce criticism of postmodernism, as a disguised continuation of modernism, does of course touch ground, but in the end it does not add much to the discussion about temporality.
Because the key question is then: what is his alternative, surely if he concedes that homogeneous, universal and linear time continues to dominate our thinking? This book clearly falls short in that department. It seems as if West-Pavlov believes that simply unmasking the myth of linear thinking is sufficient enough. This results in, for example, almost inimitable, abstract reasoning: “We must rewind this process, reverting from the notion of reified things within segmented time to a notion or immanent time embodied in the dynamic processes of becoming inherent in all beings. This counter-intuitive move reverses a historical progression in which fluid processes have been attributed end-stop characteristics to make them appear as bounded entities within a segmented temporal environment. The sequence of re-conceptualization reverses the sequence of historical mystification.” I do follow what Western Pavlov means by that, but what is lacking here are incentives to translate this into concrete models.
In his chapter on postcolonial temporalities, he does a prudent attempt, where he proposes a model of a forest: instead of the linearly connected universal time, he argues for "entangled multiplanar temporalities", with another reference to the Australian aboriginals. And in his final conclusion he continues: “Producing performative models of a multiplicity or immanent space-times would contribute to restoring ethical relationships not only between human actors but also with the many natural actants of the animal, vegetable and mineral environment. Such instantiations of the "experimental humanities" would understand themselves not as meditations "about" time, but as exemplifications from the creative agency or immanent temporalities themselves. The very temporality of the "experimental humanities" would resonate with the non-linear, unpredictable dynamism of the universe itself in its becoming." Again, this touches ground, but what do you buy with it?
Conclusion: the critical analysis by West-Pavlov about the failure of the modernist notion of universal, linear time is absolutely pertinent, and his plea for taking other, diverse temporalities seriously is justified. Only he does not succeed in proposing a sound, practically applicable alternative and he gets stuck in an abstract discourse. In opposition to this, I find Penelope Corfield's attempt in Time and the Shape of History, with her proposal to combine a kind of triple approach (long continuity, slow changes and disruptions) a much more pragmatic and feasible approach, even though also this model has its limitations. Finally, I must say that I find it very incomprehensible that in a conceptual study on temporalities no reference is made to Reinhart Koselleck nor François Hartog, both epigones of temporality studies.
March 7, 2020
Conceptual studies, the study of the content, use and evolution of abstract concepts in a society, became very popular in the 1960s. In the social sciences in particular, they boomed, often with a Marxist undertone (especially in the German tradition, less so in the Anglo-Saxon area). The 'discipline' of philosophy also quickly felt the need to define concepts and notions more precisely. In almost all cases, attempts were made to streamline the debate: agreement on what a certain word or concept means is a clear basis for discussion, otherwise you will be talking next to each other. Of course, it is not a simple job, because the spectrum that a concept covers can be quite broad, and it always appears that the angle from which you look at the concept is crucial for the interpretation. That immediately means that you are also talking at a fairly abstract level.
This book, published in the series 'The New Critical Idiom' by Routledge, tops the category of abstract concepts. Because, is there something more elusive than ‘time’ or ‘temporality’? The classic reference is always to Augustine (5th century) who wrote: “What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know”. The author of this study, Russel West-Pavlov, hasn’t been put of by this dilemma. He is a professor of literature studies in various places in Germany, but also in South Africa and Australia, and belongs to the Critical School, of Marxist origin, specialized in what is called ‘Subaltern Studies’: the post-colonial and post-imperialist view from the South to the Western world.
No wonder then that West-Pavlov in this book on temporalities is very critical of the concept of absolute, universal and homogeneous time forced upon the world by Western modernity. He contrasts this Western concept with the many other forms of temporality that still exist or that have been repressed by that universal temporality. His analysis is erudite and enormously synthetic, but at the same time - how could it be otherwise - very abstract. What particularly appealed to me is that he approaches the concept of temporality from a 'systemic' point of view. At the same time, his analysis also contains somewhat simplistic assumptions, and his final conclusion remains very vague. For an extensive review, see my History-account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
This book, published in the series 'The New Critical Idiom' by Routledge, tops the category of abstract concepts. Because, is there something more elusive than ‘time’ or ‘temporality’? The classic reference is always to Augustine (5th century) who wrote: “What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know”. The author of this study, Russel West-Pavlov, hasn’t been put of by this dilemma. He is a professor of literature studies in various places in Germany, but also in South Africa and Australia, and belongs to the Critical School, of Marxist origin, specialized in what is called ‘Subaltern Studies’: the post-colonial and post-imperialist view from the South to the Western world.
No wonder then that West-Pavlov in this book on temporalities is very critical of the concept of absolute, universal and homogeneous time forced upon the world by Western modernity. He contrasts this Western concept with the many other forms of temporality that still exist or that have been repressed by that universal temporality. His analysis is erudite and enormously synthetic, but at the same time - how could it be otherwise - very abstract. What particularly appealed to me is that he approaches the concept of temporality from a 'systemic' point of view. At the same time, his analysis also contains somewhat simplistic assumptions, and his final conclusion remains very vague. For an extensive review, see my History-account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show....
December 1, 2022
This has been a slow, sometimes arduous, reading process, but it so paid off. A necessary read for anyone interested in theories of time (with literature as a lynchpin), as the book gives a good explanation of a variety of approaches. The merging between science and humanities was challenging but done well. But it is also deeply critical: it offers a new theory of time, one that embraces a plurality and dynamism, ultimately intertwining space and time (which has been separated by colonial and capitalist hegemonic powers), arguing for a collective one.
August 6, 2017
I was recommended this text in order to address my scepticism towards, “temporality” and “time” as significant philosophical concepts. However, in the end it seems only to justify more thoroughly my scepticism as it seems comprised of mostly romanticized nonsense and mystifications.
West-Pavlov’s account of time, temporality, etc, seems grounded in so many vague equivocations and false equivalences between quite distinct concepts, under the concept of “temporality” seems to lie variously anything vaguely connected to space-time as a formal property of the universe, clocks and particular means of measuring time, narrative forms, history in both the sense of Geschichte and Geschehen, and sequentiality. This indistinct mass of concepts are then claimed to offer a useful frame of analysis of social forms, revealing its “contradictions” and “paradoxes”. Yet many of these problems seem to arise due to the ambiguities of West-Pavlov’s concept of “temporality”.
Central to the work is Einstein’s supposed destruction of newtonian “absolute time”. However, West-Pavlov seems only able to advance the broader impact of this development by significantly misrepresenting Einstein’s own theory and ignoring the whole concept of an “inertial frame of reference”.
Secondly, that West-Pavlov’s argument is primarily advanced through literary examples and references to novels, or other works of art is not clearly justified. One is left wondering whether these narrative difficulties really constitute issues of “time” or merely issues of literary form? What is the relationship between general relativity as a metaphysical conception of the universe and Salman Rushdies’ poetic references to the tick-tock of clocks?
Thirdly, the inadequacy of this concept “temporality” seems particularly apparent in West-Pavlov’s discussion of the Australian Mabo case, in which, by shifting the problem to one of “conflicting temporalities” the actual problem, the nuance of meaning of “ownership” and its relationship to “law” is completely obfuscated and West-Pavlov sees only “paradoxical requirements” advanced by the high court.
West-Pavlov’s account of time, temporality, etc, seems grounded in so many vague equivocations and false equivalences between quite distinct concepts, under the concept of “temporality” seems to lie variously anything vaguely connected to space-time as a formal property of the universe, clocks and particular means of measuring time, narrative forms, history in both the sense of Geschichte and Geschehen, and sequentiality. This indistinct mass of concepts are then claimed to offer a useful frame of analysis of social forms, revealing its “contradictions” and “paradoxes”. Yet many of these problems seem to arise due to the ambiguities of West-Pavlov’s concept of “temporality”.
Central to the work is Einstein’s supposed destruction of newtonian “absolute time”. However, West-Pavlov seems only able to advance the broader impact of this development by significantly misrepresenting Einstein’s own theory and ignoring the whole concept of an “inertial frame of reference”.
Secondly, that West-Pavlov’s argument is primarily advanced through literary examples and references to novels, or other works of art is not clearly justified. One is left wondering whether these narrative difficulties really constitute issues of “time” or merely issues of literary form? What is the relationship between general relativity as a metaphysical conception of the universe and Salman Rushdies’ poetic references to the tick-tock of clocks?
Thirdly, the inadequacy of this concept “temporality” seems particularly apparent in West-Pavlov’s discussion of the Australian Mabo case, in which, by shifting the problem to one of “conflicting temporalities” the actual problem, the nuance of meaning of “ownership” and its relationship to “law” is completely obfuscated and West-Pavlov sees only “paradoxical requirements” advanced by the high court.
Read
March 1, 2013I am really fond of this particular series, and while I take issue with a couple of West-Pavlov's chapters, I think his is an solid addition to the group. I would recommend this as a nice primer for people interested in temporalities, though I would caution any future readers that West-Pavlov is perhaps too invested in his attempts to "read" temporality through literature (to the detriment of his project when he ignores various other media and genres that could illustrate his points more effectively).
July 1, 2019
Wonderful overview of theories of time concepts that also pushes its own ideas forward.
April 22, 2020
This book is a bit abstract but still interesting as it contains a lot of different perspectives on the nature of time.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews