If, through modern Western eyes, the Greenbergs of this ad were a normal family, we could imagine them feeling that family life superseded all other aspects of life. That is, according to modern conventional wisdom, a happy family life is an end in ilself. Earning and spending money are the means for achieving this end. Home and community are primary; workplace and mall are secondary. When we go out to work, it’s to put bread on the table for the family. When we shop at the mall, it’s often to buy a Christmas, birthday, or house present “for the family." Put in other terms, we often see the home and the community as sacred, and the workplace and the mall as profane. We are who we are at home and in our communities. We do what we do at work and buy what we buy at the mall.

To be sure, we make exceptions for the odd workaholic here or shopa­holic there, but, as the terms imply, an overconcern with the profane realms of work and mall are, given this way of seeing things, off moral limits. Sherry

Greenberg fits right in. She is in her kitchen feeding her son. She has what one imagines to be a manageable job. It’s just that she’s wanting to hurry things along a bit.

Implicit in this conventional view of family life is the idea that our use of time is like a language. We speak through it. By either what we say we want to spend time doing or what we actually spend time doing, we say what it is we hold sacred. Maybe we don’t think of it just this way, but we assume that each “spending time” or each statement of feeling about time ( “I wish I could spend time”) is a bow from the waist to what we hold dear. It is a form of worship. Again, Sherry Greenberg is symbolizing the importance of fam­ily. It’s just that she’s slightly on the edge of that conventional picture because she’s in a hurry to get out of it. The Quaker Oats ad both appeals to this family-comes-first picture of life and subtly challenges it, by taking sides with her desire to feed Nicky “efficiently.”

The subtle challenge of the ad points, I believe, to a larger contradiction underlying stories like that of the Greenbergs. Reflecting on my research on the Fortune 500 company I call Amerco, I’ll try to explore it. Increasingly, our belief that family comes first conflicts with the emotional draw of both workplace and mall. Indeed, I would argue that a constellation of pressures is pushing men and women further into the world of workplace and mall. And television—a pipeline, after all, to the mall—is keeping them there. Family and community’ life have meanwhile become less central as places to talk and relate, and less the object of collective rituals.

Many of us respond to these twin trends, however, not by turning away from family and community, but by actually elevating them in moral impor­tance. Family and community are not a realm in decline, as David Popenoe argues about the family and Robert Putnam argues for the community. To many people, both have become even more important morally. We encap­sulate the idea of the cherished family.1 We separate ideal from practice. We separate the idea of “spending time with X" from the idea of “believing in the importance of X.” We don’t link what we think with what we do. Or as one Amerco employee put it, using company language, “I don’t walk the talk at home." This encapsulation of our family ideal allows us to accom­modate to what is both a pragmatic necessity and a competing source of meaning—the religion of capitalism. 1 say pragmatic necessity, because most Americans, men and women alike, have to work for food and rent.

At the same time, a new cultural story is unfolding. It is not that capital­ism is an unambiguous object of worship. After all, American capitalism is, in reality, a highly complex, internally diverse economic system for making, advertising, and selling things. But, without overstating the case, it seems true that capitalism is a cultural as well as an economic system and that the symbols and rituals of this cultural system compete with, however much they seem to serve, the symbols and rituals of community and family This means that working long hours and spending a lot of money—instead of spending time together—have increasingly become how we say “I love you” at home. As Juliet Schor argues in The Overspent American, over the last twenty years, Americans have raised the bar on what feels like enough money to get along. In 1975, according to a Roper poll, xo percent of people mentioned a second color TV as part of “the good life," and 28 percent did in 1991. A 1995 Merck Family Fund poll showed that 27 percent of people who earned $xoo, ooo or more agreed with the statement, “I cannot afford to buy every­thing I really need." At the same time, between 1975 and 1991, the role of family in people’s idea of “the good life” declined while the importance of having money increased. The importance of having a happy marriage to “the good life” declined from 84 percent in 1975 to 77 percent in 1991. Meanwhile having “a lot of money” went from 38 percent in 1975 to 55 per­cent in 1991.5

How much of a stretch is it, I wonder, to go from the trends Schor points out to Harvey Cox’s daring thesis: that capitalism has become a religion? As Cox puts it:

Just as a truly global market has emerged for the first time in human history, that market is functioning without moral guideposts and restraints, and it has become the most powerful institution of our age. Even nation-states can often do little to restrain or regulate it. More and more, the idea of “the market” is construed, not as a creation of culture (“made by human hands,” as the Bible says about idols), but as the “natural” way things happen. For this reason, the “religion” the market generates often escapes criticism and evaluation or even notice. It becomes as invisible to those who live by it as was the religion of the preliterate Australians whom Durkheim studied, who described it as just “the way things are.”6

Capitalism has, Cox suggests, its myth of origin, its legends of the fall, its doctrine of sin and redemption, its notion of sacrifice (state belt-tighten­ing), and its hope of salvation through the free market system. Indeed, if in the Middle Ages the church provided people with a basic orientation to life, the multinational corporation’s workplace, with its “mission statements,” its urgent deadlines, its demands for peak performance and total quality, does so today. Paradoxically, what would seem like the most secular of systems (capitalism >, organized around the most profane of activities (making a liv­ing, shopping), provides a sense of the sacred. So what began as a means to an end—capitalism the means, a good living as the end—has become an end itself. It’s a case of mission drift writ large. The cathedrals of capitalism dominate our cities. Its ideology dominates our airwaves. It calls for sacrifice, through long hours of work, and offers its blessings, through com­modifies. When the terrorists struck the twin towers on 9/11, they were, per­haps, aiming at what they conceived of as a more powerful rival temple, another religion. Heartless as they were, they were correct to see capitalism, and the twin towers as its symbol, as a serious rival religion.

Like older religions, capitalism partly creates the anxieties to which it poses itself as a necessary answer. Like the fire-and-brimstone sermon that begins with “Man, the lowly sinner,” and ends with “Only this church can redeem you,*’ so the market ethos defines the poor or unemployed as “unworthy slackers” and offers work and a higher standard of living as a form of salvation. Capitalism is not, then, simply a system in the service of family and community; it competes with the family. When we separate our fan­tasy of family life, our ideas of being a “good mother and father” from our daily expressions of parenthood, our ideals live timelessly on while we wor­ship at the biggest altar in town, with ten-hour days and long trips to the mall.

A constellation of forces seems to be pressing in the direction of the reli­gion of capitalism. And while no one wants to go back to the “frying pan" of patriarchy, we need to look sharp about the fire of market individualism under capitalism. It is in the spirit of looking at that fire that we can exam­ine several conditions that exacerbate the tendency to apply the principle of efficiency to private life.

The first factor is the inevitable—and on the whole I think beneficial— movement of women into the paid workforce." Exacerbating this squeeze on time is tiie overall absence of government or workplace policies that fos­ter the use of parental leave or shorter, more flexible hours. Over the last twenty years, workers have also been squeezed by a lengthening workweek. According to a recent International Labor Organization report on working hours, Americans are putting in longer hours than workers of any other industrialized nation. We now work two weeks longer each year than our counterparts in Japan, the vaunted long-work-hour capital of the world.” American married couples and single-parent families are also putting in more hours in the day and more weeks in the year than they did thirty years ago. Counting overtime and commuting time, a 1992 national sample ol men averaged 48.8 horn’s of work, and women, 41.7. 9 Work patterns vary by social class, ethnicity, race, and the number and ages of children, of course. But, overall, between 1969 and 1996 the increase in American mothers’ paid work combined with a shift toward single-parent families has led to an average decrease of 22 hours a week of parental time available (outside of paid work) to spend with children.1" And the emotional draw of a work culture is sometimes strong enough to outcompete a weaker family culture (see “Emotional Geography and the Flight Plan of Capitalism," chapter 15).



If capitalism began as a means but became an end in itself, then families and local communities must daily face a competing urgency system and a rival conception of time. Company deadlines compete with school plays. Holiday sales at the mall vie with hanging out at home. The company’s schedule and rules have come, for workers, to define those of families. For the managers and production workers at Amerco, the company I studied for the Time Bind, the debut of a certain kind of product and its “product life cycle” came to prevail over personal anniversaries and school holidays. When family events did take precedence, they did so on company terms. As one woman explained, “My mother died and I went back to arrange for the funeral and all. I went for four days. The company gives us that for bereavement, and so that’s the time I spent.” In the early industrial period in Europe, whole workforces disappeared at festival time, or workers put an iron bar in the machinery, stopped the assembly line, and took a break. Company time did not always rule.

In response to the challenge of this competing urgency system, I’ve argued, many families separate their ideal of themselves as “a close family" from a life that in reality is more hurried, fragmented, crowded, and indi­vidualized than they would like. They develop the idea of a hypothetical family, the family they would be if only they had time. And then they deal with life in a contrary fashion.

Many Amerco employees came home from a long workday to fit many necessary activities into a limited amount of time. Although there were important exceptions, many workers tried to go through domestic chores rapidly if for no other reason than to clear some space in which to go slowly. They used many strategies to save time—they planned, delegated, did sev­eral things simultaneously. They packed one activity close up against the next, eliminating the framing around each event, periods of looking for­ward to or back upon an event, which might have heightened its emotional impact, A 2:00 to 2:45 play date, 2:45 to 3:15 shopping trip, 3:15 to 4:45 visit to Grandma, and so on. As one mother, a sales manager, said with sat­isfaction, “What makes me a good employee at work is what makes me able to do all I do at home; I’m a multitasker, but [with a laugh] at work I get paid for it.”

With all these activities, family time could be called “hurried” or “crowded.” But in fact many working parents took a sporting “have fun” atti­tude toward their hurried lives: “Let’s see how fast we can do this! Come on, kids, let’s go!” They brought their image of the family closer to the reality of it by saying, in effect, “We like it this way.” They saw hassle as challenge. In other families, parents seemed to encourage children to develop schedules parallel to and as hectic as their own. For example, the average annual vaca­tion time both at Amerco—and in the United States as a whole—is twelve days, while schoolchildren typically have summer holidays of three months. So one Amerco mother placed her eight-year-old son in a nearby summer program and explained to him, in a you’re-going-to-love-this way, “You have your job to go to, too.” She talked about her schedule as she might have talked about a strenuous hike. She was having fun roughing it with multi­tasking and chopped-up time.

Another way of resolving the contradiction between ideal and reality was to critique the fun ethic and say, in eifect, “Family life isn’t supposed to be fun. It’s supposed to be a hassle, but we’re in the hassle together, and why isn’t that okay?” This often carried families over long stretches of time, but it prevented family members from giving full attention to each other, і ime was hurried (not enough time allotted for an activity— 15-minute baths, 20- minute dinners, for example). Or time was crowded (one or more people were doing more than one thing at a time). Or it was uncoordinated. Only two out of four people could make it to dinner, the ball game, the reunion. If there was not some chronic avoidance of a deep tension, families usually also took another approach. They deferred having a good time. Instead of say­ing, “This hassle is fun,” they said, in effect, “This hassle isn’t fun. But we’ll have fun later." They waited for the weekend, for their vacation, for “quality time.”


But the more a family deferred the chance for relaxed communication, the more anxious they sometimes became about it. One man told me: “My wife and I hadn’t had time together for a long dme, so we decided to take some ‘marital quality time’ by going out to a restaurant to eat dinner together. We had a nice dinner and afterwards went for a walk. We passed a toy store and my wife wanted to shop for a toy for our child. But I told her, ‘No, you have a different quality time with our child. This is our quality time.’ So we spent the rest of the evening arguing about whose quality time it was we were spending."

Another long-hours Amerco executive seemed to take this strategy of deferral to an extreme. When I asked him whether he wished he’d spent more time with his three daughters when they were growing up, he answered, “Put it this way, I’m pleased with how they turned out." This father loved his daughters, but he loved them as results. Or rather, his feel­ing was “ I want my wife to enjoy the process of raising them. I’ll enjoy that vicariously. What I will enjoy directly is the result, the young adults.” So he didn’t think family life should or shouldn’t be fun while the kids were small and adolescent. That was his wife’s specialty. He was deferring his real enjoyment until his daughters had grown up. Even Amerco parents who spent far more time with their children occasionally justified this time in terms of future results. They were pleased at how “old for their age” their children were, how “ahead,” given a limited expenditure of parental time. Perhaps, most parents held a double perspective on their children—they cared about the child as he or she was growing up and about the child as he or she emerged in adulthood. Most oriented toward the family as a source of intrinsic pleasure were women and workers in the middle or lower ranks of the company; least oriented in this way were upper management or pro­fessional men—the congregation and the priests.

From the top to the bottom of the Amerco workforce, workers were forced to answer the challenge of capitalism—not simply as a system that gave them jobs, money, and stuff, but as a system that offered them a sense of purpose and guidance in a confusing time. They had to deal with the reli­gion of capitalism, its grip on honor and sense of worth, its subtraction from—or absorption of—family and community life. We’ve emerged from an era in which most women had little or no paid work to a era in which most do. Are women jumping from the frying pan of patriarchy into the fire of capitalism? Just as the early industrial workforces took off at festival time, because they were not yet “disciplined” to capitalism, maybe postindustrial ones will work out their own way of living a balanced life. There could be a balance not just between the role of piano teacher, say, and mother, but between the unpaid world of home and community and the money world of work and mall. That may be the deeper issue underlying the ad for Quaker Oats cereal. For, our cultural soil is surreptitiously prepared for ads, like that for Quaker Oats cereal, that make you spend time buying one more thing that promises to save time—which increasingly we spend earning and