30
M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska
2005, p. 233) raises problems related to the synchronization of activities in a situation where institutionalized—and thus relatively stable and universal in the scale of
a given society—temporal systems are eroded under the influence of individualized
time management practices and the rhythm of work and leisure. The third is related
to the allocation and compression of activities over time, the accumulation of a large
number of activities that individuals have to perform in a relatively short period
of time, forcing them to “juggle tasks” and do several things at once (Southeron
and Tomlinson 2005, p. 233). And these things are not “triggered,” and are increasingly organized by algorithmic automation, which is increasingly taking the form of
“leisure technology” (cf. Turel 2019).
As indicated by the authors of the research, the particular intensity that characterizes such situations brings a sense of action under substantial time pressure, causing
a state defined by anguish (cf. Martini 2017). Being tormented by time resembles the
rush and persecution of time in the sense that people are in a hurry to perform the
tasks set before them for a limited period of time, or feel crushed by the burden of
obligations towards others. People who are particularly vulnerable to living in times
of under-treatment are relatively young, well-educated middle-class people with a
high professional status, whose lifestyle is characterized by “cultural omnivorousness,” understood as an attitude towards consumption that involves chasing a wide
variety of cultural experiences while at the same time not involving a significant
amount of time and energy in the consumption of each of them (cf. Peterson and
Simkus 1992; Peterson and Kern 1996).
The shrinkage of time and in particular the processes associated with uncoordinated rhythms and temporal densification are the result of much shorter intervals for
attracting the attention of individuals as well as the fragmentation of time blocks,
which is associated, among other things, with the transition from the sequential to
the asynchronous experience of time (Jung 2011, p. 65) or the temporary accumulation of time (Ericksen 2001, pp. 155–156). The last phenomenon refers to the
rapid accumulation and compression of more and more information, possibilities
and experiences in ever shorter time periods; in other words, the accumulation of
fragment hegemony. Images, information, news and offers fill all free time spaces
(Ericksen 2001, p. 90; cf. Gleick 2003, pp. 18–19).
The abolition of traditional dichotomies and the resulting thinking that assigns
responsibility to the subject redefines (but does not abolish) the traditional functions
of leisure time, which are updated on different principles. The ways of experiencing
leisure time are changing slowly as we have pointed out; the catalogue of functions
and activities carried out within the framework of free time, and thus its properties,
as a socio-cultural category is changing. Although, as Roberts pointed out, most
leisure time activities are characterized by permanence, thus we are increasingly
dealing with a kind of kaleidoscope of continuation and change (Roberts 1999, p. 49).
Known activities often gain only different forms of realization, new ways of use or
different functions and meanings. This situation illustrates the way leisure time is
shaped on different principles determined by the changing context and a different
degree of reflection on the “I” and self-design, which means that even watching TV
or reading books means something completely different today and is realized on
M. Baranowski and D. Mroczkowska
2005, p. 233) raises problems related to the synchronization of activities in a situation where institutionalized—and thus relatively stable and universal in the scale of
a given society—temporal systems are eroded under the influence of individualized
time management practices and the rhythm of work and leisure. The third is related
to the allocation and compression of activities over time, the accumulation of a large
number of activities that individuals have to perform in a relatively short period
of time, forcing them to “juggle tasks” and do several things at once (Southeron
and Tomlinson 2005, p. 233). And these things are not “triggered,” and are increasingly organized by algorithmic automation, which is increasingly taking the form of
“leisure technology” (cf. Turel 2019).
As indicated by the authors of the research, the particular intensity that characterizes such situations brings a sense of action under substantial time pressure, causing
a state defined by anguish (cf. Martini 2017). Being tormented by time resembles the
rush and persecution of time in the sense that people are in a hurry to perform the
tasks set before them for a limited period of time, or feel crushed by the burden of
obligations towards others. People who are particularly vulnerable to living in times
of under-treatment are relatively young, well-educated middle-class people with a
high professional status, whose lifestyle is characterized by “cultural omnivorousness,” understood as an attitude towards consumption that involves chasing a wide
variety of cultural experiences while at the same time not involving a significant
amount of time and energy in the consumption of each of them (cf. Peterson and
Simkus 1992; Peterson and Kern 1996).
The shrinkage of time and in particular the processes associated with uncoordinated rhythms and temporal densification are the result of much shorter intervals for
attracting the attention of individuals as well as the fragmentation of time blocks,
which is associated, among other things, with the transition from the sequential to
the asynchronous experience of time (Jung 2011, p. 65) or the temporary accumulation of time (Ericksen 2001, pp. 155–156). The last phenomenon refers to the
rapid accumulation and compression of more and more information, possibilities
and experiences in ever shorter time periods; in other words, the accumulation of
fragment hegemony. Images, information, news and offers fill all free time spaces
(Ericksen 2001, p. 90; cf. Gleick 2003, pp. 18–19).
The abolition of traditional dichotomies and the resulting thinking that assigns
responsibility to the subject redefines (but does not abolish) the traditional functions
of leisure time, which are updated on different principles. The ways of experiencing
leisure time are changing slowly as we have pointed out; the catalogue of functions
and activities carried out within the framework of free time, and thus its properties,
as a socio-cultural category is changing. Although, as Roberts pointed out, most
leisure time activities are characterized by permanence, thus we are increasingly
dealing with a kind of kaleidoscope of continuation and change (Roberts 1999, p. 49).
Known activities often gain only different forms of realization, new ways of use or
different functions and meanings. This situation illustrates the way leisure time is
shaped on different principles determined by the changing context and a different
degree of reflection on the “I” and self-design, which means that even watching TV
or reading books means something completely different today and is realized on