In Holquist’s article, he discusses the different needs and uses of surveillance during the Cold War and the entrance of World War 1. The uses of surveillance under the Imperial regime and the Soviet Regime was very different. It was noted that every month, officials would have to turn in reports that would show how the citizens were feeling in terms of thier moods. A statement was made “the crucial factor was not the ‘popularity’ of the system”…”These systems were concerned isntead with sculpting and “gardening” a better society while simultaneously molding societies human material into a more emancipated, conscious and superior individual– the “new man”” (Holquist. pg 417) This statement goes to show that throughout the wars, the use of surveillance was to change the people.
Thompson’s article about time and work-discipline is much different because it does not compare two different groups of people separated in time, but rather an abstract idea. He describes time as relative to the group of the people being discussed. An example is given “nature demands that the grain be harvested before the thunderstorms set in…sheep must be attended at lambing time” (Thompson pg 60). This use of nature and farming vernacular is relative to the people it describes. The development of the clock, from grandfather clocks to pocket watches are described as a slow process in which time, which was once different and relatvie to each group, to become one central time that everyone abides by, regardless of your occupation. As it stands today, clocks are linked to satellites so that everyone in your time zone has the same standard time. It seems that in order to study an abstract idea like time, one must have an understanding of where the idea came from, how it was used many years ago, to understand its progression and its future. This article was very interesting to me because coming from a family of farmers, is it is very true that time is relavant to the group it describes.