William Willett is no famous scholar. He is, however, famous for his dedication to BST, and these are extracts from his pamphlet (can be found online).
'Under the most favourable circumstances, there then remains only a brief spell of declining daylight in which to spend the short period of leisure at our disposal.'
This idea of leisure, and its necessity, and the need for daylight in order to have leisure time, is quite important. Though we can now do many things at night in the dark- as our intervention will show- this was difficult at the time. There were no 24 hour cafes, restaurants or superstores. Was this 1907's way of creating more leisure time? More daylight, when the darkness led to the inevitability of bedtime? Where darkness was an inevitability?
'...when light permits them to do so, whatever time they have at their command after the duties of the day have been discharged.'
Yet now, in contrast, we seem to have taken hold of the night, bent it to our needs and wants, and created a world of leisure inside of it. Whereas back then you had to change the clocks in order to have leisure time, now you do not need to. The night is no longer indestructible, to put it dramatically. 21st Century capitalism has found a way. In fact, 21st Century capitalism has created a multitude of activities that can only exist at night time- clubbing, gambling etc- or at least, they're marketed in that way.
'Now every hour so spent makes for health and strength of body and mind. With 9 hours and 20 minutes every week, of additional opportunity, the value of existing opportunities for exercise and recreation will be more than proportionately increased. The brief period of daylight now at our disposal is frequently insufficient for most forms of outdoor recreation, but the daily addition of 1 hour and 2o minutes after 6 p.m. will multiply several times the usefulness of that which we already have.'
Again, this dedication to strengthening the mind and the body, to being better and stronger, to being productive creatures who wish to do do and do as much as we possibly can. As Willett puts it, 'additional opportunity'.
He also seems to value sleep and argues that we will even sleep better:
'We shall not rob ourselves of sleep. On the contrary, we may sleep better, for 8o minutes more daylight in our waking hours will leave 8o minutes more darkness for our sleeping hours. By those who do not retire to rest until the early hours of the morning, land by those who sleep with open windows, the advantage of not being aroused by the sun so early, as they frequently now are, will not be unappreciated.'
The economical aspect to his proposal also becomes a focus. This brings us back again to capitalism and money, and the question of what can we do to make more money, and spend less?
'This consideration brings into view the National financial aspect of the scheme. Assuming the cost of artificial light, for each unit of the population, averages only, one-tenth of a penny per head, per hour, the figures with which I conclude this paper show that 210 additional available hours of daylight can be gained and at least £2,500,000 a year can be saved to the people of Great Britain and Ireland...a permanent economy equivalent to a reduction of the National Debt by at least one hundred million pounds sterling; to be followed by the honour of bringing similar blessings within easier reach of a great proportion of mankind.'
This argument is very much in line with Benjamin Franklin's work well over 100 years previously (briefly mentioned in my previous post) on a visit to Paris. In his essay on daylight saving (Letter to the Editor of the Journal de Paris, April 26 1784), he argued along economical lines:
'They are as well instructed judicious, and prudent a people as exist anywhere in the world all professing, like myself, to be lovers of economy; and,from the many heavy taxes required from them by the necessitities of the state, have surely an abundant reason to be economical. I say it is impossible that so sensible a people, under such circumstances, should have lived so long by the smoky, unwholesome, and enormously expensive light of candles, if they had really known, that they might have had as much pure light of the sun for nothing.'
Of course, and Franklin's work aside, Willett's proposal is mostly a romantic value of daylight rather than an economical one, and a value that we do not seem to hold anymore. Perhaps because the night time is just as valued as daytime now? I'd like to know what Willett would make of the modern day world of leisure at night time. You'd think he would like the idea of being productive and active into the evening and night (judging by some of his previous arguments) but he also (as I just said) valued daylight in itself:
'While daylight surrounds us, cheerfulness reigns, anxieties press less heavily, and courage is bred for the struggle of life. Against our ever-besieging enemy, disease, light and fresh air act as guards in our defence, and when the conflict is close, supply us with most effective weapons with which to overcome the invader. Even the blind keenly realise the difference between daylight and darkness. They are always cheered by the former, but depressed by the latter.'
'That so many as 210 hours of daylight are to all intents and purposes wasted every year, is a defect in our civilisation. Let England recognise and remedy it. Let us not be so faint-hearted as to hesitate to make the effort when the cost is to trifling and the reward so great.'
I think this pamphlet is necessary not in just its focus on doing more and being productive, but also through the necessity of daylight in order to increase leisure time, and the contrast that this makes with the modern day world- a world where daylight is no longer needed for more leisure. By comparing the different ways in which light saving is argued, we can identify the growth (and changes) of capitalism throughout the 20th Century and into the 21st, and its effect on our interpretation of the night/day border. If you saw my previous post, you'd notice that the arguments for keeping these seasonal clock changes are less so for leisure, but more for the economical benefits. No longer do we need daylight to have fun, in other words. No longer do we need daylight to wind down. The line between night and day, in terms of what we do, is slowly disappearing, whereas back then, this line, this boundary, seemed to define people, to 'dictate' to them. We've all seen old films where someone would say, 'but it's nearly nightfall, alas! I must get home!' Do you ever hear that now? Today it's more like, 'it's nearly nightfall, where are my best jeans?'
I imagine that the romantic values of daylight may still resonate with many people, but it is not a strong argument alone, most especially in these times. If anything, people might prefer to travel around at night. I'd like to see the statistics showing the number of people on the London Eye in the evening, for example. I'd imagine that they're pretty high. You often hear people talking about the pretty city lights- even the Christmas lights are a major attraction. This attraction to lights at night (perhaps we are more attracted to light than dark, and it's not the dark itself that is attractive, but the existence of light in a dark space that is?) is utilised by capitalism- lights to attract customers. I hate to hate on Christmas, but the Oxford Street lights are not there just to look pretty.
It also seems that in modern day there has to be some economical benefit, and that this benefit is more important than others. The same held true even in 1907, however the benefits of leisure were more prominent, and thus it seemed to have won the argument. It is true that leisure time, especially for the working classes and their lack of it, was a popular topic of discussion for writers at the time. Anna's mentioned article, 'In Praise Of Idleness' by Bertrand Russell argues along similar times. Now we're past all of that, because we all have leisure time- for class reasons, but also because of the night- hence the reason why leisure is no longer a topic of discussion any more.
The actual main reason why William Willett is important it because he is Chris Martin's great-great-grandfather.
No comments:
Post a Comment