Time Rebellion: When People Refuse the Clock

Hello, 

I created this report because rebellion doesn’t only look like protests, manifestos, or smashed machines. Sometimes it looks like something much quieter: refusing to accept the version of time we’ve been handed.

The way we measure and obey time today isn’t neutral or “natural”, it’s a system we inherited from factories, railroads, and offices.

It arrived dressed up as common sense, then slowly became invisible. That’s what fascinates me: the fact that something as deep and intimate as our sense of time can be handed down almost like a uniform.

For me, there’s a kind of responsibility in that realization. Once you see that your experience of time has been designed for you, it’s hard not to push back a little – even if only in soft ways.

Choosing a different way to mark the year, saying no to constant urgency, or simply noticing the seasons instead of the seconds are all small acts of rebellion.

This report is my way of tracing that lineage: from workers fighting factory clocks to the small, domestic ways we resist now. It’s not about glorifying rebellion for its own sake, but about honoring that instinct to say, “I didn’t choose this time, and I’d like to.”

TL;DR:

Throughout history, people have pushed back against imposed clock time as a way to reclaim control over their lives.

From 19th-century mill workers who sabotaged factory clocks to today’s “quiet quitters” setting healthy boundaries, resisting standardized time has been a form of rebellion against exploitation and regimentation. Time discipline, once enforced by monastery bells, then factory whistles, and now digital notifications, has always been an instrument of power. 

Yet humans have continually carved out autonomous rhythms: observing Saint Monday as an extra day of rest, smashing clock towers during revolutions, slowing their work to a crawl in protest, or disconnecting from the 24/7 digital rat race.

In our present era, movements like the four-day workweek and artifacts like The Present (a one-year clock) embody a growing conviction that time should serve human well-being, not just productivity.

---

 

Dundee, Scotland – 1850.

Dawn breaks with the clamor of a factory bell. A young mill worker named John checks the pocket watch he spent a month’s wages on. The factory’s clock high in the bell tower reads quarter past five, but John’s own watch says it’s barely 5:00. He scowls – the mill owner has set the clock ahead to steal extra minutes of labor again watchesbysjx.com. Not today, John decides. He lingers at the gate with a knot of fellow workers, all of them eyeing their pocket watches and ignoring the premature bell. Only when their watches say 5:15 – the real 5:15 by the sun – do they stride in together. It’s a small, seditious act of synchronization: workers asserting their time over the boss’s clock. In that quiet defiance, John feels a surge of dignity. For a moment, the relentless pace of mill time yields to the workers’ own sense of the day – a taste of freedom.

Time as a Power System

Before modern clocks ruled every waking hour, time was experienced as fluid and rooted in nature. In agrarian and nomadic societies, people organized life by the sun, seasons, and tasks at hand. A day’s rhythm flowed from sunrise to sunset; work and rest alternated organically. There was “little distinction between work and leisure” when time was defined by the task rather than the clock watchesbysjx.com. A farmer labored until the field was plowed or the cow milked, then stopped when the job was done or daylight faded. These pre-clock cultures followed what E.P. Thompson called “task-orientation”, measuring time by “the time it takes to cook a pot of rice” or “the frying of a locust” rather than hours and minutes punkmagic.medium.com. Social life and labor blended seamlessly; as Thompson noted, “time [was] not passed but spent” doing what needed doing, and then enjoying communal rest watchesbysjx.com.

Starting in the Middle Ages, however, time began to harden into an external force—something abstract that could be measured, commodified, and ultimately controlled. The first to regiment time were not factory owners but monks. Medieval monasteries lived by strict schedules of prayer (the Liturgy of the Hours), enforced by ringing bells at precise intervals. Historian Lewis Mumford observed that “the monastery was the seat of a regular life”, where ringing bells and rudimentary clocks carved the day into uniform segments of devotion and work joabj.comjoabj.com. This monastic regimen, driven by faith, inadvertently pioneered the idea that daily life should march to a consistent beat. As Mumford famously wrote, “The clock, not the steam-engine, is the key machine of the modern industrial age”joabj.com. Long before factories, the monastery’s clocks and bells turned time-keeping into time-serving: hours became something to obey.

In the late medieval and early modern era, urban merchants and city officials joined the game of time control. Towns installed public clocks on church towers and market halls, allowing merchants to coordinate fairs and trading hours. A booming clock-making industry emerged in 17th-century London, where owning an exquisite timepiece became a status symbol of the rising mercantile class leohollis.medium.com. These ornate pendulum clocks were luxury items, but they also introduced a new “discipline of urban time”: the idea that a “diligent worker” should “make every minute count”, judging labor by hours worked rather than tasks completed leohollis.medium.com.

Punctuality started to be seen as a virtue in itself. By regulating the business day with clocks, merchants and city governors could extract more predictable work and align everyone to a shared schedule. The town clock, once a public convenience, doubled as an economic weapon: “Time-keeping passed into time-accounting and time-rationing,” as Mumford put it joabj.com. Those who owned the clocks (city elites, guilds, and merchants) implicitly wielded power over those who did not.

With the dawn of industrial capitalism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, time moved fully from “natural time” to “mechanical time” – and with it came fierce social conflict. Factories ran on clock time: shifts began and ended at exact hours, and productivity was measured in units per time. No longer could a weaver or cobbler pause when tired or vary their pace; industrial workers were expected to march to the unyielding tick of the factory clock. Employers enforced strict work-discipline: showing up late or “losing” time could mean docked wages or dismissal. Whole populations were reconditioned to obey bells, whistles, and clocks instead of seasons and daylight tribunemag.co.uktribunemag.co.uk. As one historian describes, industrial time aimed to “synchronize the actions of men to the machine”joabj.com, making human rhythms subservient to the needs of production. Time awareness became ingrained: by the late 19th century, even biological functions were being ruled by the clock – people ate because it was “lunchtime” and slept because it was “bedtime,” not solely from hunger or fatigue watchesbysjx.com.

Crucially, clock time became a tool of surveillance and control in workplaces. In the 1890s, American factories introduced the punch time clock, a device that stamped each worker’s card with the exact minute of arrival and departure watchesbysjx.com. Managers pored over these time cards, penalizing tardiness down to the minute. The new “time discipline” ensured that the worker’s very seconds were accounted for by the company watchesbysjx.com.

As industrial engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor preached in The Principles of Scientific Management, every task could be timed and optimized, every idle minute eliminated watchesbysjx.com. Under such regimes, time was no longer the worker’s ally or a gentle backdrop to life – it was a whip in the owner’s hand. The clock had become a one-way instrument of power: those who paid wages used it to “harness and expend” every minute of labor watchesbysjx.com, while those who sold their time often felt robbed of natural rhythms and personal agency.

Yet even as time was standardized and monetized, humans never ceased quietly resisting its tyranny. Implicitly, the struggle over time became a struggle over autonomy. Who gets to say when the day begins, how long work lasts, when one may rest? In the age of factories, these questions were far from settled, and the battle lines would be drawn at the clock face.

The Violent Arrival of Industrial Time

When industrial clock-time arrived, it didn’t do so politely – it was imposed with the clamor of bells and the force of factory rules, and it sparked upheaval in everyday life. For people used to a slower, task-based tempo, the factory’s rigid schedule felt violent and alien. Contemporary accounts from the early Industrial Revolution describe the shock workers experienced under the new time-discipline. One observer noted how peasants-turned-factory-workers in England had to be almost dragged to the mills on time, so unfamiliar were they with the idea of a strict starting bell tribunemag.co.uk. E.P. Thompson documented cases of weavers who fell into despair at the relentless pace, and miners in South Wales who would spontaneously “down tools and set off on days-long drinking sprees” to escape the grind tribunemag.co.uk. To many, the factory bell was an affront – a loud thief in the morning stealing your sleep, and a call to heel like one might command livestock.

Factory owners eagerly wielded the clock as a tool of control – sometimes deceitfully so. A notorious practice in 19th-century mills was “clock tampering”: owners would set factory clocks ahead in the morning and behind at night to cheat workers out of minutes or even hours watchesbysjx.com. James Myles, who started as a child laborer in a Dundee textile mill, later recalled bitterly how “the clocks at the factories were often put forward in the morning and back at night” by unscrupulous masters watchesbysjx.com. By slyly adjusting time, employers could extract extra labor beyond the agreed hours – essentially committing wage theft by the clock. So rampant was this in some locales that workers simply stopped trusting the factory bell or the dial on the wall. Many took matters into their own hands, carrying personal pocket watches to verify the true time and calling out management’s tricks. Indeed, as soon as watches became affordable, owning one became an act of self-defense for workers: “the timepiece was the poor man’s bank, an investment of savings” that could be sold in hard times, wrote Thompson – but just as importantly, a weapon to “contest the dishonest manipulation” of factory clocks by the boss watchesbysjx.com. A Lancashire laborer with a pocket watch no longer had to take the mill’s clock as gospel; he could meet the bell’s shrill summons with skepticism and, if need be, proof of deceit.

This quiet rebellion – the Pocket Watch Revolution – spread through the working class in the mid-1800s. By the 1860s, mass production by American firms like Waltham and Ingersoll had flooded the market with cheap watches, bringing accurate timekeeping into reach for common folks watchesbysjx.com. As one chronicle notes, “eventually, cheap yet reliable timepieces could be found in most waistcoats or trousers, regardless of the wearer’s wealth” watchesbysjx.com. The result was a subtle shift in power on the factory floor. No longer could a foreman easily lie, “It’s not quitting time yet!” if dozens of workers could pull out watches showing otherwise. Owning your time – literally wearing it on a chain – was both practical empowerment and symbolic rebellion. It meant time was not exclusively the boss’s to dictate.

Sometimes, resistance to industrial time was anything but quiet. History is littered with explosive moments when people struck back against clocks themselves – smashing, shooting, or defying the instruments of temporal control. During the French July Revolution of 1830, Parisian insurgents took special aim at clock towers. As Walter Benjamin recounts, “during the evening of the first skirmishes, it turned out that the clock-towers were shot at independently and simultaneously in several places in Paris.” A contemporary poet wryly described how, “irritated against the hour, new Joshuas fired at the dials to stop the day” thesmartset.com.

The imagery was poetic but also literal – rebels were firing musket balls at clock faces, as if to kill the time that symbolized the old regime. Of course, bullets can’t halt the passage of time, but the gesture was powerful: destroying clocks stood for destroying an oppressive order. In that act of vandalism lay a profound statement that time, as measured and imposed by authorities, would no longer rule unchallenged.

Similar sentiments drove other outbreaks of time-targeted protest. The Luddites of England (1811–1813), better known for wrecking knitting machines, were in a sense also fighting “against time itself.” Mill owners had begun running machines around the clock, using shifts to produce through the night historians.org. Workers saw their livelihoods and traditional pace of work threatened by a 24-hour production cycle that cared nothing for human need for rest. While Luddites mainly smashed looms, their cause – in Eric Hobsbawm’s words – was “collective bargaining by riot” to win back some control over the tempo and terms of their labor thesmartset.com. We can view their destruction of machinery as an attempt to “stop the sun” in its frantic race – a desperate wish to turn back to a time when work had natural limits and nights were for sleeping.

Not all acts of time rebellion were violent; many were subtler forms of noncompliance woven into working-class culture. One famous example was “Saint Monday” – the tradition among craft workers and laborers of taking Monday off as an unofficial holiday. In the 1700s and early 1800s, it was common for artisans (who often worked on their own schedule) to declare Monday a day of leisure, especially after a boisterous Sunday. Early industrial workers continued this custom as a form of collective absenteeism. They would simply not show up on Monday, en masse, forcing employers to either tolerate it or face a factory half-empty on the week’s first day tribunemag.co.uk.

Saint Monday was essentially a self-awarded holiday – a pushback against the six-day work week that left only Sunday for rest. As industrialists railed against the “idleness” it caused, working men defended it as “the people’s holiday”, even jocularly canonizing the imaginary Saint Monday as the patron of beer and skittles. This folk tradition amounted to an organized delay of the work week, a popular revolt against the new tyranny of punctuality. It persisted well into the 19th century (Victorian employers fumed about it), until the concept of the Saturday half-holiday and eventually the full weekend provided a more formal compromise tribunemag.co.uk. The memory of Saint Monday underscored that people would rebel when work-time expanded too far and personal time was too scarce.

In myriad ways, then, the early industrial age saw time become a battleground. Employers fought to maximize time under their command – sometimes by literally rigging the clocks – while workers and citizens learned to mistrust and even sabotage those clocks. Every stolen minute, every smashed clock face, every “lazy” Monday was part of a broader struggle: the fight to assert that human beings are more than cogs in a ceaseless clockwork. Rebellion against imposed time was fundamentally rebellion against exploitation, loss of agency, and the mechanization of life.*

The Standardization of Time (and the Backlash)

By the mid-19th century, industrialization had synchronized not just workdays but entire regions. The next step was to standardize time on a global scale – a project driven largely by the iron necessities of railroads and telegraphs. Schedules for trains crossing long distances demanded a single uniform time; local sun-time varied from town to town, which was a recipe for missed connections and even collisions. Thus came “railroad time” and the invention of time zones. In November 1883, American rail companies famously agreed to coordinate clocks across the continent, carving the U.S. into five standard time zones in a single day. Britain had led the way earlier: by the 1850s, almost all English railways ran on London-based Greenwich Time, even if local towns still kept their own hours for a while en.wikipedia.org.

But imposing standard time was not smooth or universally welcomed. Many communities experienced it as an abrupt intrusion on local autonomy – or even as a kind of temporal colonization by far-off elites. “The railway companies faced concerted resistance from local people who refused to adjust their public clocks to London time,” notes one historical account of Britain’s time conversion en.wikipedia.org. In some towns, two different times would be kept side by side: the train station clock showed standardized “Railway Time” while the clock on the church or city hall tower continued to show the old local solar time en.wikipedia.org. Bristol, for instance, stubbornly maintained its own time (10 minutes behind London) on the city’s main clock, compromising only by adding a second minute hand to indicate London Time for travelers en.wikipedia.org. Exeter did the same, displaying dual minute hands – one for “Exeter time” and one for Greenwich – rather than surrender completely to the new regime en.wikipedia.org. These double-faced clocks were tangible symbols of a culture straddling two temporal orders: the traditional, community-defined time and the new standardized time of the nation and industry.

Rural areas and farmers were often especially reluctant to adopt the new clock governance. To farmers, “railroad time” seemed an artificial concept with little relevance to agrarian life. Noon was when the sun was highest, not when some conductor’s pocket watch said so. When rail timetables said the train arrived at 1:37 PM, villagers used to rounding off to the nearest quarter hour might scratch their heads at such precision. Some saw the creeping ubiquity of standard time as yet another way urban industrial society was encroaching on the rhythms of rural existence. In North America, a number of towns initially refused to reset their courthouse or church clocks to the railroad-prescribed hour. Detroit famously waffled for years on adopting Eastern Standard Time, clinging to “Detroit Time” (some minutes off) until 1900, when local voters finally approved aligning with standard time – a decision met by some dismay that the sun would no longer dictate the local noon. Even as late as the 1910s, pockets of rural Indiana reportedly ignored the new time zones, sticking to sun-time well into the 20th century.

The politics of time standardization could flare into real controversy. In 1880, when the British government moved to legally enforce a single national time, debates in Parliament and the press revealed deep ambivalence. Was it right to obliterate generations of local custom – “St. Peter’s time” in one village, “Oxford time” in another – in favor of a monolithic clock time? One letter to a newspaper likened forcing London time on the provinces to cultural imperialism, arguing that it “violated the rights of municipalities” who had kept their own hours since time immemorial. It felt, to critics, as if the center (capital and rail magnates) were dictating the daily rhythm of the periphery. Similarly, when standard time was introduced across colonial India in the late 19th century (merging dozens of local times into one “Indian Standard Time”), many Indians saw it as part and parcel of British colonial control – an attempt to Anglicize even the hours of the day.

Some of the resistance was practical and psychological: people simply found it hard to adjust their habits and instincts. “Solar time” had an intuitive appeal; folks could gauge it by the length of shadows and the feel of the afternoon. By contrast, standardized time felt abstract, cold, imposed by decree. If the clock on the wall said the sun now sets at 7:15pm instead of 7:00, what did that really mean? It took a conscious effort to retrain one’s sense of time. For older generations especially, standard timezones felt as jarring as a new calendar or even a new language. Indeed, around the same era, the French Revolution’s authorities had attempted a new clock and calendar (with 10-hour days and 10-day weeks) – an extreme form of imposed time that farmers and churchgoers flatly rejected, leading to its abandonment. People’s tolerance for temporal upheaval had limits.

Despite early grumbling, the efficiency gains of standard time gradually won out. By the 1890s, “railway time” had essentially become ordinary time in most places it touched en.wikipedia.org. In 1918, standard time and time zones became U.S. law, cementing what the railroads had started. In Britain, after the 1880 act, local times faded into history (though the phrase “before the railway” lingered to mean something antiquated). Ironically, what helped sell standard time were some of the very arguments once used against it: **proponents claimed it would “encourage greater precision in daily tasks and punctuality”, instilling order and saving everyone from confusion en.wikipedia.org. Many came to appreciate the convenience of knowing exactly when the train or post would arrive, no calculation needed. Standard time knit nations and markets closer – **but in doing so, it undeniably eroded local temporal sovereignty.

The subtle resentments and cultural frictions of that change hint at a larger truth: time standardization was as much a political and cultural project as a technical one. Imposing a single time implied that someone – be it a government, a railroad baron, or a capital city – had the authority to dictate the tempo of life everywhere. Accepting it meant ceding a bit of collective autonomy. The varied small rebellions, from Bristol’s two-minute hands to villages ignoring the new time, illustrate how deeply people cherish their control over time. It wasn’t merely nostalgia; it was an assertion that time belongs, at least in part, to the community and the individual, not just the clockmasters of industry.

Modern Time Rebellions

Fast forward to the 21st century, and the struggle over time has shifted into new arenas – the office cubicle, the smartphone screen, the legislative chamber – but the core conflict remains: people pushing back against schedules, hours, and always-on expectations that feel oppressive or exploitative. Today’s rebellions against time take forms both subtle and sweeping, echoing the patterns of the past in a modern key.

Slowness as Protest

One direct descendant of Saint Monday and the slow-paced “task orientation” of old is the deliberate slowdown as a form of labor protest. Instead of striking outright, workers sometimes choose to work strictly by the rules and at the slowest acceptable pace – a tactic known as “work-to-rule” or a “go-slow” strike. By obeying every safety regulation, every procedural step, and refusing any extra effort, workers create costly delays while technically still doing their jobs. For example, French railway workers in the mid-20th century famously turned compliance into chaos: they conducted full safety inspections on every train at every stop (as the rulebook allowed) and consulted manuals at length, making nearly every train late museumofprotest.org. In a similarly ingenious slowdown, British postal workers once weighed every single letter to ensure proper postage – including obviously light ones – which “overwhelmed the post office with backlogs” in days museumofprotest.org. These actions highlight how modern organizations implicitly rely on workers’ informal speed and goodwill; when that is withdrawn, the gears grind to a crawl museumofprotest.org. Slowness becomes a weapon. The point is pointed: by executing only the minimum, workers expose how much “extra” labor is normally expected for free museumofprotest.org. Management is left in a bind – punishing employees for following the rules too faithfully reveals the hypocrisy of the system. Such malicious compliance undermines the tyranny of urgency and demonstrates that the tempo of business is not immutable – it depends on human consent.

Outside of union actions, a broader “slow movement” has emerged as a cultural protest against acceleration. This includes the Slow Food movement (savoring traditional, leisurely cooking versus fast food) and concepts like “slow scholarship” or “slow parenting”, all arguing that faster is not always better. Even on an everyday personal level, choosing to do things slowly – walking instead of driving, handwriting a letter instead of firing off an email – can be a quiet rebuke to the cult of speed. It recalls Thoreau’s spirit at Walden Pond, a deliberate life in defiance of the rail timetable. In workplaces, some employees practice a low-key rebellion by simply taking their full allotted breaks and lunch hours, refusing to rush or multitask beyond what health and sanity allow. In a world that fetishizes busyness, the act of slowing down is subversive – it reclaims quality of life over quantity of output.

Quiet Quitting and Boundary-Setting

Perhaps the buzziest recent term for time rebellion is “quiet quitting.” Despite the misnomer, quiet quitting doesn’t mean resigning from your job at all – it means quitting the idea of going “above and beyond” at work, and instead doing only what one is paid to do. In other words, workers (often younger Gen Z and Millennials) are pushing back against the pressure to devote excess unpaid time, passion, and overtime to their employers. They’ll fulfill their job description, then clock out physically and mentally. “You’re still performing your duties but you’re no longer subscribing to the hustle culture mentality that work has to be your life,” explained one 24-year-old whose TikTok video on quiet quitting went viral weforum.org. This trend surged in the wake of COVID-19, which left many workers burned out and reevaluating their priorities weforum.org. Rather than succumb to “grind culture” and constant connectivity, quiet quitters draw a firm line around their evenings, weekends, and mental space. They refuse to answer emails after hours, decline extra projects with no extra pay, and generally treat a job as a job – not a calling.

Management pundits have fretted about this as a decrease in engagement. But from the workers’ perspective, it’s a reclaiming of their time from the company ledger. It’s telling that a 2022 Gallup survey found only 21% of global employees feel engaged at work – meaning the vast majority are “living for the weekend,” “watching the clock,” and viewing work as “just a paycheck,” as Gallup put it weforum.org. In effect, quiet quitting is already the norm for many, and they are simply embracing it openly. This mindset is a rebellion against the expectation that one must “love” one’s job and sacrifice personal life for it. Instead, people are insisting their identity and worth extend beyond productivity. As one advocate of quiet quitting summed up in a TikTok, “your worth as a person is not defined by your labour”weforum.org – a radically humane notion in a culture that long equated virtue with hard work.

The Four-Day Week and Beyond

Some modern time revolts happen at the policy level. A striking example is the growing movement to shorten the standard workweek from five days to four (without pay cuts). What was once a utopian dream is gaining real-world traction through pilot programs and legislation. Trials of the four-day workweek in various countries have yielded promising results: workers report lower stress and burnout, higher life satisfaction, and equal or even greater productivity in 32 hours than in 40 scientificamerican.com. In one large 2022–2023 trial spanning 6 countries and 2,900 workers, burnout rates plummeted, mental and physical health improved, and 90% of the participating companies decided to keep the four-day schedule after the trial’s end scientificamerican.com. Fears that output would suffer proved unfounded – better-rested employees actually made fewer errors and worked more efficiently, offsetting the shorter hoursscientificamerican.com. These findings echo a deep truth long known to labor reformers: beyond a certain point, long hours produce diminishing returns, and “time compression” can even boost focus and morale.

The push for a four-day week is rebellion in a reformist guise. It challenges the sacrosanct 40-hour, Monday-to-Friday grind that has defined work for generations. Early adopters see it as correcting anachronistic 20th-century norms and taking advantage of productivity gains from technology to give people back more time. Trials in Iceland and New Zealand, and company experiments from Japan to Spain, have all suggested that we can work less for the same pay and not only maintain but often improve outcomes. It’s essentially a labor movement for the 21st century, arguing that time – the ultimate scarce resource – should be returned to people if society can afford it.

The fact that some governments (like Belgium and Iceland) and big companies are now implementing shorter weeks shows this once-radical idea is becoming mainstream. It’s a sign that collective values may be shifting: growth and output at any cost are no longer unquestioned; quality of life and autonomy are equally valued goals. In reclaiming one weekday, workers are reclaiming a slice of freedom – rewriting the balance between time for the employer and time for oneself.

Youth and the “Anti-Work” Ethos

No discussion of modern time rebellion would be complete without acknowledging the mindset of younger generations toward traditional careers. Surveys and social trends indicate that many Gen Z and Millennial workers reject the old promise that “hard work for 40 years = security and happiness.” Having seen parents weather layoffs and burnout, and facing a gig economy with dwindling job security, they are less willing to arrange their entire lives around a 9-to-5 job. This has given rise to what’s sometimes called the “anti-work movement.” The term doesn’t mean everyone literally wants to be unemployed; rather it captures a broad disenchantment with work-as-life and a search for alternatives.

A vivid manifestation of this is the online community r/antiwork on Reddit, which exploded from a fringe forum into a major social hub in the early 2020s. By the end of 2021, the subreddit had nearly 1.7 million subscribers (up 900,000 in that single year)en.wikipedia.org, and today it counts over 2.9 million members. On r/antiwork, people share stories of quitting abusive jobs, discuss living frugally to work less, and question the moral imperative of constant work. The forum’s tongue-in-cheek slogan, “Unemployment for all, not just the rich!”, encapsulates its contrarian humor en.wikipedia.org. While some posts are just cathartic rants, the collective message is that the system of overwork and underpay is broken, and individuals are not wrong to want more free time and dignity. In one sense, it’s a continuation of age-old labor sentiments (who doesn’t want better work conditions?), but couched in a highly skeptical view of whether most jobs as structured now are even necessary or worthwhile. For many young participants, refusing the traditional career path – whether by traveling as a digital nomad, doing gig work just enough to fund their lifestyle, or opting out of high-pressure careers – is seen as a rational response to a world where loyalty is rarely rewarded in kind.

Of course, the “anti-work” stance has its trade-offs and critics. Gig work and nomadic lifestyles can mean financial precarity and lack of benefits. Not everyone truly wants to opt out of meaningful work; they want to transform it. What unites these trends, though, is a desire for flexibility and self-determination in time. A digital nomad might work irregular hours from a beach, but they’ve traded stability for the freedom to choose when and where to work. A gig driver can log on or off the app at will – albeit within an algorithm’s constraints – which is attractive compared to a fixed shift. Even “side hustle culture,” while often about earning more, is also a rebellion against having a single employer dictate all one’s hours and income.

The proliferation of freelancers, entrepreneurs, and job-hoppers reflects a generation less willing to let a corporation own their calendar. They would rather juggle multiple gigs on their own terms than sit under one boss’s gaze from 9 to 5. In short, today’s youth are voting with their feet (and keyboards) for a new deal with time: one that prioritizes personal agency, mental health, and life outside work.

Digital Detox and the Right to Disconnect

The colonization of time in the 21st century has come not only through jobs but through the devices in our pockets. The smartphone and constant internet connectivity have created an “always-on” culture where work and social demands can intrude at any hour. Notifications ping for emails, messages, news – there is always something demanding attention, fragmenting our time into ever-smaller shards. In response, a movement of “digital rebellion” has taken shape, encouraging people to reclaim time and focus from technology. This includes everything from national laws to personal habits aimed at shutting off the constant flow of digital demands.

Several countries (France being a pioneer in 2016) have implemented a “right to disconnect” – labor laws that give employees the right to ignore work communications outside of work hours without penalty. This was a direct backlash against the expectation that an email from the boss at 10 PM should get an immediate reply. By legally affirming that off-hours are off-limits, such policies reinforce a boundary that digital tech had erased – effectively rescuing a portion of personal time from work’s reach.

On an individual level, people are adopting practices like turning off notifications for large portions of the day, or using phone settings like Do Not Disturb to carve out quiet time. A survey by a tech trends firm found that about 1 in 4 consumers have switched off notifications or moved certain apps off their home screen, reflecting a conscious effort to reduce digital intrusions gwi.com. Others embrace the concept of the “digital Sabbath”: taking one day a week (often Sunday) to unplug completely from screens and internet. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt advocates this, noting that “adults should take a day off from technology every week” to regain their sanity and attention weforum.org. He suggests forming a community around it – friends or family who all agree to put away phones for the day – making it a collective stand against the tyranny of the ping weforum.org. By doing so, people rediscover activities that slower, deeper forms of time afford: long conversations, leisurely meals, unhurried walks – the very experiences that get squeezed out by constant online busyness weforum.org.

Even short of a full day off, micro-habits are spreading: no-phone zones at home (like the dinner table or bedroom), scheduled “notification checks” instead of continuous checking, and intentional delays in responding to messages to signal that one’s life is not enslaved to instant communication. These behaviors all send a message: I control my time, not my phone. In essence, refusing to answer immediately, or at all, is a modern form of time rebellion – a refusal of urgency. It asserts that not every moment must be filled with reacting to something. As more people voice frustration with “time confetti” (the scattered seconds lost to constant interruptions), digital wellbeing is becoming a priority. Ironically, even some tech companies now promote “wellness” features like screen-time trackers and app timers – tacitly admitting that unchecked connectivity devours our time and peace.

Underneath these trends is a growing suspicion that the feeling of “time scarcity” is manufactured, or at least exaggerated by modern systems. Despite all our labor-saving technologies, people don’t feel more leisurely; often they feel more hurried. Sociologists like Judy Wajcman point out that digital tools were sold as time-savers, yet they’ve accelerated the pace of life and raised expectations of availability. The result is a population that is busy by default, often with self-imposed digital busyness. The pushback – be it through slow living, quiet quitting, or digital detox – comes from the realization that being overly busy has become a status symbol and a trap, rather than a necessity or virtue.

Studies of “time affluence” and “time poverty” underscore that it’s not objective lack of time that makes people miserable (we all have 24 hours), but the subjective feeling of being controlled by obligations and lacking any discretionary time. Those who feel “time-poor” – often high-achieving professionals – report lower happiness and health, even if they have leisure on paper bbh.com. Conversely, those who feel “time-rich” – who have autonomy in how they spend their hours – enjoy better well-being and even productivity bbh.com. In light of such findings, carving out unstructured, offline time becomes not just a personal luxury but a societal imperative. It is a rebellion aimed at nothing less than restoring our basic humanity in the face of a 24/7 marketplace that would devour every last minute.

How People Weaponize Time

Time is not only something one can rebel against – it can also be a tool for rebellion. Throughout history and into the present, marginalized or less powerful groups have cleverly weaponized time itself as a form of resistance or assertion of power. Here are some ways people wield temporal tactics:

• Slowness: As discussed, working deliberately slowly (or “go-slow” protests) forces those in power to wait on your output. It’s a non-violent way to gum up the works and assert that labor cannot be rushed without consent museumofprotest.org. By moving slowly, whether in a factory or even in a bureaucratic office setting, individuals show that they control the tempo. (Ever been at the DMV with a lethargic clerk? You’ve tasted the power of slowness.)

• Delay: Beyond work situations, simply delaying responses or decisions can shift power in personal or political relationships. Diplomats and negotiators often stall for time as a strategy. In everyday life, responding to a contentious email only after a significant pause can be a way of saying “I will respond on my schedule, not yours.” Delay can frustrate those who want to impose urgency and thus equalize an interaction.

• Absence: Not showing up – literally being absent when expected – can speak volumes. Whether skipping a coerced meeting, walking out of an unjust trial (as some activists have done), or, historically, enslaved people slipping away (temporarily or permanently) from forced labor, absence denies the oppressor the use of your time and body. It creates a void that asserts, “You do not own my presence.”

• Non-response: In the digital realm, ignoring messages (or “ghosting” in interpersonal terms) is a tactic of setting boundaries. Refusing to be available at all times is a way to assert autonomy over one’s attention and time. The tick-mark culture of instant messaging – where people anxiously watch whether you’ve “seen” their message – creates a power dynamic. By choosing when or if to respond, one subtly reclaims power. (This can be taken to unhealthy extremes, but in moderation it’s a valid form of protecting one’s time.)

• Taking a Long Pause: In conversation or meetings, strategic silence can unnerve those who expect immediate compliance. Think of a question posed by a boss – a subordinate who pauses, reflecting for a noticeably long time before answering, exerts a quiet control over the pace of that interaction. Likewise in conflict resolution, deliberately not filling the silence can pressure the other side to speak or concede. As the saying goes, “he who can keep his peace the longest wins.”

• Lateness: Chronically showing up late can be a form of passive defiance (though it can also just be poor planning). In cultural contexts, we see this in the idea of “Colored People’s Time” or “Indian Stretchable Time” – tropes in African American and Indian contexts, respectively, which both acknowledge and gently satirize the tendency to treat punctuality with flexibility. While sometimes seen as negative stereotypes, some have reinterpreted them as subversive resistance: a refusal to be bound by the strict clocks of a system not designed by them. On an individual level, making a powerful person wait for you can flip a status dynamic – it’s why usually the higher-status person is “allowed” to be late (their time is considered more valuable). When lower-status individuals are late, it inverts that expectation and can be interpreted as a subtle “no.”

• Refusal of Urgency: Perhaps the most general of these tactics is simply refusing to adopt the sense of urgency others try to impose. This is a psychological stance as much as a behavior. An employee told “this must be done today!” might internally decide that if it gets done tomorrow, the world won’t end. A parent might choose not to overschedule their child despite pressure to do a dozen activities. By refusing to be rushed, people reclaim the narrative that not everything is critical. This refusal can be maddening to those in power who use urgency as a control mechanism (e.g. the “rush job” as a way to extract extra unpaid labor). It’s reminiscent of civil rights activist Bayard Rustin’s advice on dealing with racist aggression: he advocated maintaining calm and not reacting on the oppressor’s timeline – a way to deny them emotional control.

Each of these micro-strategies – slowness, delay, silence, absence, lateness – are “weapons of the weak,” to borrow anthropologist James Scott’s phrase. They typically don’t overthrow systems overnight. But they allow individuals and groups small islands of control in currents of power. They send a message that people are not mere automatons who will respond predictably to every command or clock. In their cumulative effect, they remind society that consent underlies all social schedules – and when consent is withheld, even passively, the mighty must yield or adjust.

Time Rebellion as Psychological Agency

At its heart, a rebellion against imposed time is a rebellion for psychological agency. Time may seem like an objective fact of the universe – the ticking seconds, the Earth orbiting the sun – but how we experience and structure time is profoundly shaped by culture, authority, and choice. When people reject an imposed time regime, they are really saying: I choose to decide how I live my moments. This has deep implications for identity, mental health, and dignity.

First, consider that our sense of self is tightly interwoven with our use of time. We often define who we are by how we spend our days: the teacher in her classroom, the farmer in his fields, the parent during family dinners, the artist at the canvas late at night. When an external system dictates your schedule down to the minute, it can feel like your life is not your own – hence the classic feeling of alienation under strict work regimens. Taking back chunks of time (an afternoon off, a gap year, a slower workflow) allows one’s self to re-emerge. It’s telling that people who go through burnout and recovery often say the first step was to set boundaries on work time and carve out personal time – essentially, to reassert an “I” that is not just a cog in a machine.

Psychologically, having autonomy over one’s time is linked to greater well-being on multiple levels. Studies on “time affluence” (the feeling of having enough time) versus “time poverty” (the feeling of being rushed and starved for time) show dramatic differences in life satisfaction. People with more perceived time affluence report feeling more empowered, more competent, and having stronger relationships bbh.com, whereas those in chronic time poverty often experience stress, anxiety, and a sense of being “out of control” bbh.com. In fact, lacking autonomy over time can even harm physical health – constant time pressure is associated with hypertension and poor sleep, for example. So when individuals or groups fight to shorten the workweek, or to disconnect after 5pm, they are not just making a logistical change; they are reclaiming a foundation of mental health. Free time (or truly free time, under one’s own control) allows for recovery, reflection, and attending to personal needs – all key to a healthy psyche.

Rebelling against imposed time also means reclaiming one’s bodily rhythms and natural cycles. Our bodies have their own clocks – circadian rhythms, hormonal cycles – that industrial time often forces us to ignore. The classic example is the factory horn at dawn versus the body’s desire to wake with the sun or after enough rest. Pre-industrial workers would often nap or vary their work by season; industrial workers had to adapt to fixed shifts, even if it meant being groggy or working in darkness. Today, many people are tuning back into their bodies: the rise of flexible work arrangements and remote work has allowed some to sleep according to their natural chronotype (night owl vs morning lark) and take breaks when their body signals need. The “listen to your body” mantra in wellness is, in a sense, a time rebellion mantra – it says the clock should not always override physiological needs. By insisting on the right to sleep, to take mental health days, to not respond instantly, individuals assert that they are living beings with rhythms, not machines with on/off switches.

Dignity and self-worth are also at stake. To be forced to account for every minute, or to always be “on the clock,” can be deeply dehumanizing. It reduces a person to a unit of time sold. Small acts of time reclamation restore a sense of dignity by affirming that one’s life time has value beyond its price in wages or its utility to others. Think of the caregiver who sets boundaries to have Sunday for their own family, or the junior employee who firmly uses all their vacation days instead of letting them be subsumed by work. These are statements of self-respect: my time is my life, and it is precious. Conversely, when people are denied control of their time (as in extreme cases like incarcerated individuals or sweatshop workers with grueling hours), one of the main psychological harms is the stripping of agency – the message that you do not own even your own minutes. Thus, any step to regain time, however modest, is a step toward reasserting one’s humanity.

Finally, controlling one’s time opens up space for imagination and growth. Free time has historically been the seedbed of creativity, innovation, and cultural flourishing. (The Ancient Greeks’ word scholē – the root of “school” – meant leisure, because only with leisure could one pursue knowledge.) When workers fought for the 8-hour day in the 19th century, a slogan was “8 hours for work, 8 hours for rest, 8 hours for what we will.” That last part, “what we will,” is crucial. What might you will, what might you dream or create, if given time? People who step off the hamster wheel often discover interests, talents, or community engagements that a packed schedule had crowded out. By resisting round-the-clock busyness, we allow our minds to wander and play – which can lead to everything from artistic endeavors to community activism. In short, time rebellion can rekindle the imagination – individually and collectively – because it creates the blank spaces in which new ideas and ways of living can be envisioned.

In sum, when humans refuse the clock’s dictates, they are doing more than tweaking their calendars. They are affirming a fundamental truth: time is the medium of life, and every person deserves a say in how their life is shaped. Resisting imposed time is an act of reclaiming oneself – one’s identity, health, and spirit – from the myriad forces that would commodify every hour. It is, in the end, a declaration of freedom.

Physical Artifacts of Time Rebellion

Not all revolts against clock-time are abstract; some are literally built into objects and tools that offer an alternative way to experience time. Over the years, people have created various artifacts – from simple gadgets to elaborate machines – explicitly designed to counter or critique standard timekeeping. These physical objects serve as embodied rebellions, allowing users to live, even partially, in a different temporal world.

Pocket watches were one of the earliest and most influential of such artifacts (as we saw). In the 1800s, the proliferation of the pocket watch among workers democratized time. Owning a watch was more than a convenience; it was a statement of independence. A worker could carry his own time in his pocket, no longer solely dependent on the factory bell or the town clock. This undermined the monopoly that employers had on “telling time.” A pocket watch meant you could meet the boss eye-to-eye about the hour. As one historian noted, for a 19th-century laborer, “the timepiece was the poor man’s bank”watchesbysjx.com and we might add, his shield – something that gave him leverage and confidence. Interestingly, these watches were often passed down or gifted in families, suggesting they were seen as empowering tools for the next generation as well.

Next came alarm clocks, which seem mundane now but had a revolutionary impact in their time. In the early industrial period, before affordable alarm clocks, many workers relied on professional “knocker-uppers” who patrolled the streets with sticks or peashooters to wake people for their shifts watchesbysjx.com. By hiring a knocker-upper or rigging makeshift alarms, workers were trying to regain agency over the start of their day, rather than surrender that to the factory’s morning whistle. When mechanical alarm clocks became mass-market items in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they, paradoxically, served liberation as well as discipline. Yes, they helped people be on time (serving the industrial system), but they also freed people from needing wake-up calls from factory supervisors or dormitory bells. An alarm clock meant self-reliance: you set it for when you needed or wanted to wake. It could be argued that the alarm clock personalized time discipline – putting the power (and responsibility) in individuals’ hands instead of external authorities. In effect, it said: “Rise on schedule, but on your own terms.” This subtle shift increased personal autonomy within the confines of needing to be punctual.

In more recent decades, we’ve seen a wave of “slow time” devices and designs aimed at healing our relationship with time. For instance, 24-hour analog watches (sometimes called “one-hand watches” or marketed under names like Slow Watch) have a single hand that takes a full 24 hours to circle the dial. These watches don’t show minutes or seconds at all, only the broad position of the sun (morning, noon, evening, night). The philosophy behind them is to encourage a less granular, more relaxed view of the day – to “sense time on a different scale than usual and truly feel the present,” as one reviewer described medium.com. By removing the frantic ticking of seconds, these timepieces remind the wearer that a day is an expansive thing, not just a race from one appointment to the next. Owners often report feeling calmer and more mindful of the phase of day rather than the exact minute, as if reconnecting with natural rhythms.

Similarly, there are watches and clocks that display lunar phases, tides, or other natural cycles alongside or instead of hours. These are not merely for scientists or esoteric hobbyists; they represent a desire to integrate nature’s tempo into daily life. A “moon watch” that shows the waxing and waning moon invites you to think in a biweekly rhythm, something pre-industrial peoples paid great attention to but modern schedules ignore. Some artists and designers have even created watches that run slightly fast or slow on purpose, to provoke reflection on why exact accuracy matters so much to us.

Beyond personal devices, larger public or architectural installations also embody time rebellion. Consider the deliberate reintroduction of sundials in modern architecture and public spaces. Sundials, of course, were mankind’s earliest clocks. Installing one today – say, in a city park or on a building’s facade – is often a symbolic gesture, a nod to solar time amid the city bustle. It forces passersby to slow down and observe the shadow’s crawl, reconnecting a high-tech urbanite with the ancient, slow movement of the Earth. In London’s King’s Cross development, for example, a prominent sundial sculpture invites busy commuters to pause and check the time by sunlight – an anachronism that makes one smile and reflect on how time is bigger than the train timetable. Such installations say, in effect, “Remember, clock time isn’t the only time that exists.”

Perhaps the boldest “time rebellion” artifact to date is the Clock of the Long Now – a monument-scale mechanical clock being built inside a mountain in Texas that is designed to keep ticking for 10,000 years. This project, funded by futurist thinkers and even Jeff Bezos, is an attempt to enforce slowness and long-term thinking on our short-sighted culture. The clock will tick once a year, bong once a century, and have a cuckoo that emerges every millennium en.wikipedia.org. As Stewart Brand of the Long Now Foundation explained, the goal is to “embody deep time for people”, to create an icon that “reframes the way people think” about time on the scale of civilizations en.wikipedia.org. Visiting or contemplating this clock is meant to humble us – to rebel against the frantic 24/7 news cycle by introducing the perspective of millennia. The Long Now Clock is in many ways a direct critique of today’s accelerated tech-driven time: it forces us to consider responsibility to the future and to perceive our own lives as brief flickers in a vast timeline. If and when it’s completed and operational, it will stand as the ultimate slow timepiece, a constant gentle protest against “quarterly results” thinking.

Finally, we arrive at a category of timepiece squarely intended to change the user’s everyday temporal experience: annual clocks. An annual clock is one that makes one full rotation per year (rather than per 12 hours or 24 hours). These are extremely slow by design, often showing seasons or months on their face. The Present is one such annual clock, and it represents a culmination of many of these ideas – natural cycles, slowing down, and reclaiming a personal sense of time. Invented by artist-designer Scott Thrift in 2012, The Present has one hand that completes a revolution in 365 days, and its dial is a radiant gradient of colors representing the seasons thepresent.is. No tick marks, no numbers – just a color wheel of the year. It’s an object explicitly created to “move at the speed of nature” thepresent.is and to free the viewer from minutes and seconds. As we’ll explore in the next section, The Present is a prime example of an artifact offering an “alternative timeline people can choose” – a quiet act of defiance against standard time, hanging on your wall.

Through these artifacts – from pocket watches to annual clocks – we see that the struggle for temporal autonomy isn’t only fought in the realm of ideas or schedules. It’s also fought (and won) in the very devices we use. Each tool shapes how we perceive and value time. By designing clocks that break the mold, people have created gateways to living differently in time. These objects whisper to us that time can be experienced in multiple ways: personally vs. communally, fast vs. slow, industrial vs. natural, short-term vs. long-term. And crucially, they put the choice in the hands of individuals: wear this, hang this, and you may just find yourself inhabiting a new rhythm.

The Present and the Future of Time Rebellion

In a world dominated by hyper-precision clocks and split-second scheduling, The Present stands out as a striking counterstatement. This modern timepiece – an annual analog clock – embodies the ethos of time rebellion in a tangible form. It is, in effect, a protest against industrial time built into an object that anyone can own. By examining The Present and its implications, we glimpse the future of time rebellion: a future where individuals consciously choose what kind of time they want to live in.

What is The Present? At first glance, it’s a minimalist wall clock with a single hand and a face that displays a spectrum of colors. But instead of 12 hours, the hand completes one full circle in 365 days thepresent.is. The dial’s colors correspond to the seasons – from the deep greens of spring to the golden hues of autumn, fading into winter’s cool tones. There are no numbers, no ticking second hand, not even a mark for each day. It tells you only where you are in the grand cycle of the year. As the creator Scott Thrift puts it, The Present “reveals the present moment within the broader context of the year”thepresent.is, inviting you to see today as part of something larger and slower.

In rejecting minutes and seconds, The Present pointedly rejects the entire framework of productivity-driven time. It is impossible to use this clock to time a meeting, or your commute, or an egg boiling – tasks our normal clocks regiment. Instead, The Present is telling a different kind of time, one more suited to contemplation than calculation. As one reviewer noted, “it is both an art piece and an embodiment of a particular way to look at the world”medium.com. That worldview values presence over urgency. It emphasizes being in the now – but a now that is spacious, connected to natural phenomena, not the razor-thin split-second “now” of a stopwatch. With The Present on your wall, a glance at the clock no longer says “oh no, I’m 5 minutes late” – it might say, “ah, we’re about halfway through autumn.” Imagine the psychological shift that offers. It’s a tool that gently retrains its owner to stop rushing and start seeing the passage of time in terms of seasons and progress through the year thepresent.is.

The Present thus operates as a quiet rebellion against “clock time” as we know it. In place of the ever-divisible, ever-accelerating seconds, it presents time as continuous and cyclical. In place of fragmentation, wholeness. In place of the feeling that time is slipping away or being “spent,” The Present fosters a sense that time simply is, unfolding and returning in a reassuring loop. Some owners have said that “living with The Present” creates “a slower pace, a steadier rhythm, a quiet appreciation for time as it is” thepresent.is. Here we hear echoes of all those earlier rebellions: the desire to step out of the punch-clock cadence and into something more human, more in tune with natural reality.

One might ask: is The Present practical? Interestingly, its impracticality for scheduling is the point. It’s intentionally not a tool for utility (like catching a train) but a tool for perspective and mindfulness. As Ken Miura wrote after buying one, “this is not something you buy for its apparent utility alone… it must really resonate with you for it to be valuable beyond the physical features”medium.com. It’s closer to having a piece of conceptual art on your wall that constantly reminds you to slow down and zoom out. The value people find in it, according to many testimonials, is profound: it grants permission to not be ruled by the minute. One customer’s feedback exclaims, “It grants me access to a larger sense of now, right now.”medium.com Another notes, “Our whole family now has a sense of respect and is conscious of time in a holistic way.”medium.com These are powerful shifts – the kind you might expect from a meditation practice or a life coach, surprisingly delivered by a simple object on the wall.

The Present hands agency back to its owner in a subtle but radical manner. It says: Here is a different cycle. You may live inside it. By choosing to display this annual clock and perhaps organize one’s thinking around it, an individual is drawing “a line in the sand between inherited time and chosen time.” The inherited time is what society hands us: the 24-hour day chopped into 1440 minutes, the endless checklist of things to do each hour. The chosen time, as symbolized by The Present, is a personal and nature-aligned timeline: “Today is a slice of the year; where am I in the cycle of seasons? How do I feel as the world around me changes slowly?” This shifts focus from the relentless next (next task, next appointment) to a more grounded now. Indeed, The Present’s slogan could well be the inversion of the productivity mantra: not “What’s next?” but “Be here now.”

In broader terms, The Present and devices like it represent a new frontier of time rebellion: redesigning our tools and environments to enforce healthier rhythms. It’s one thing to individually vow to slow down; it’s another to bake it into the clocks and calendars we use. The success of The Present (over 10,000 sold, finding homes in 44 countries thepresent.is) indicates that many are eager for such alternatives. We might imagine future homes or offices having multiple timekeepers: a regular clock for appointments, but also an annual clock, a lunar clock, maybe even a 10,000-year clock display – multiple layers of temporality. This could nurture what some call “temporal intelligence”: the ability to choose the right tempo and timeframe for thinking about something. For instance, daily business decisions might still use clock time, but personal growth or community goals might be considered on a yearly or decade scale, preventing the short-termism that plagues us.

Crucially, The Present declares that “time does not have to be what you were told it is.” That phrase – almost a rallying cry – encapsulates the rebellious spirit. Most of us grew up being taught to read a clock and equating time with those moving hands and digits. To suggest otherwise sounds as radical as saying the earth isn’t flat. But here is an object that wordlessly makes that suggestion: time could be circular, colorful, patient. And if that is time, then maybe our lives don’t have to be run on split-second schedules. Maybe we can breathe.

Looking ahead, the presence of objects like The Present hints at a cultural shift. As the Nobel-winning novelist (and owner of The Present) László Krasznahorkai quipped, it’s “the most beautiful time mask in the world”thepresent.is – a poetic way to say it changes how reality appears. One could imagine these kinds of clocks becoming more common, or even public installations (a city might one day mount an annual clock in the central square to complement the hourly one). If that sounds fanciful, recall that today we take for granted things like public countdown clocks to the New Year, or stock tickers counting micro-seconds. Those are artifacts of a high-speed culture. In a future that values resilience and mental health, maybe we’ll have slow public clocks.

Time rebellion, in the end, is about reclaiming the present – and The Present (the clock) literalizes that idea. It anchors you in this day, month, season, encouraging awareness of cycles bigger than any deadline. It’s a form of resistance that’s not noisy or overtly political, but quietly profound: it changes the rebel first from within, by easing their relationship to time. And as more individuals do that, it does become political – a groundswell that questions the 24/7 hustle, that demands breathing room and sanity.

In conclusion, from monks defying sunrise to workers firing at clock towers to employees logging off email at 5, the thread through history is clear: the human spirit continuously pushes back against time regimes that feel constraining or inhumane. Every era develops its own techniques of resistance – today, we build new kinds of clocks and craft new norms like the four-day week. The rebellions need not overthrow society to matter; even the personal victories – a weekend kept sacred, a moment of stillness wrested from chaos – are meaningful assertions of autonomy. Time rebellion reveals an enduring truth about our species: we are time-conscious creatures who, paradoxically, will not be ruled solely by time. We assert our agency by reshaping time to suit human needs rather than bending humans to serve the clock. In that ongoing dance, devices like The Present are both symbol and tool – reminding us that another time is possible, and it’s already here in the now.

The Present and the Future of Time Rebellion are thus intertwined. As more people adopt these alternative temporalities in their personal lives, they sow the seeds for larger cultural change. The future might see a renaissance of humane time practices – perhaps a widespread “right to slow time,” or education teaching kids about natural cycles alongside clock-reading. The annual clock on the wall today could be as common as the wristwatch once was, each quietly cultivating patience and perspective. And with those changes, the power balance shifts: time regains its role as servant to human well-being, not master. The rebels – past, present, and future – will have won not by force, but by reminding us all that time is our canvas, not our cage.

Sources:

• Thompson, E.P. “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism.” Past & Present, no.38 (1967): Classic essay detailing the imposition of clock time on labor watchesbysjx.com.

• Mumford, Lewis. Technics and Civilization. Harcourt, 1934. Noted for the idea that “the clock […] is the key machine of the modern industrial age” and discussion of monastic time discipline joabj.com.

• “Time Consciousness and Discipline in the Industrial Revolution.” SJX Watches (2020) watchesbysjx.com – Provides historical anecdotes of factory clock manipulation and the diffusion of watches.

• “Railway time.” Wikipedia – Notes resistance to standardized time in 19th-century Britainen.wikipedia.org.

• Jones, Rhian E. “Saint Monday.” Tribune (June 2020) tribunemag.co.uk– Discusses the tradition of Saint Monday and workers’ spontaneous time off in protest of long weeks.

• Smart, Al. “Rage Against the Machine.” The Smart Set (Jan 2013) thesmartset.com – Cites Walter Benjamin on July 1830 rebels shooting at clock towers in Paris.

• “Quiet Quitting – Explained.” World Economic Forum (Sept 2022) weforum.org – Describes the quiet quitting trend and global engagement statistics.

• Ahart, Jenna & Nature. “Four-Day Workweek Makes Employees Happier.” Scientific American (July 2025)scientificamerican.com – Reports results of a large four-day week trial with improved well-being and 90% company retention.

• r/antiwork – Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org – Notes the rapid growth of the antiwork subreddit to 1.7 million+ members in 2021, reflecting disillusionment with traditional work.

• Haidt, Jonathan. Radio Davos Interview. (WEF, Mar 2025) weforum.org – Advocates weekly “digital Sabbath” and turning off notifications to regain attention and balance.

• Bruch, Ross. “Time Affluence.” (BBH, April 2023)bbh.com – Explores the link between autonomy over time and well-being; defines time poverty vs affluence.

• ThePresent.is – Official site of The Present clockthepresent.is – Describes the clock as an annual timepiece aligned with nature, promoting presence and patience.

• Miura, Ken. “I bought a clock that redefines time.” Medium (July 2023)medium.com – First-hand account of owning The Present, including features and user testimonials about its impact.