Weaving Time

Weavers, weaving at break of day,
Why do you weave a garment so gay? . . .
Blue as the wing of a halcyon wild,
We weave the robes of a new-born child.

Weavers, weaving at fall of night,
Why do you weave a garment so bright? . . .
Like the plumes of a peacock, purple and green,
We weave the marriage-veils of a queen.

Weavers, weaving solemn and still,
What do you weave in the moonlight chill? . . .
White as a feather and white as a cloud,
We weave a dead man's funeral shroud.
-[Indian Weavers, by Sarojini Naidu]

Introduction

In the book, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit, Alexandre Kojève writes, “The man who works recognises his own product in the world that has actually been transformed by his work: he recognises himself in it, he sees in it his own human reality, in it he discovers and reveals to others the objective reality of his humanity, of the original abstract and purely subjective idea he has of himself.” ⁴ This emotion of reflection and association of self in self’s product of labor (of sorts) is a recurring theme in discussions and literature around crafting or making. So, what invokes these emotions of, perhaps, belongingness, possessiveness, representation, power, affection, ownership (or something else) towards a child of one’s labor? ² Is this because of the investment of one’s personal resources, such as time and energy, into the process of producing? This essay explores the aforementioned inquiry through temporal experiences of the modalities of making, creating, building, fabricating, or crafting (all of these verbs are used interchangeably throughout this piece of writing). This is based on the assumption (but perhaps, a common and personal instinct as well) that one’s investment of one’s time in these processes of labor contributes to the affective emotions to a large extent. Isn’t it harder to feel disconnected from someone or something, with whom or which one spends more time?

The craft of weaving is one such example of a product of labor, and is also the central practice in this essay, through which the inquiries of temporalities of crafting are explored. The practice of weaving is not only rich with modalities of processes, materialities, a craftperson’s participation, and transformative product outcomes; but it is also rich in semiotics and metaphors. And, as hinted in Koselleck’s Sediments of Time: On possible histories, metaphors are an opportunity to critically analyze theories, as well as experiment with the creative freedom of thought and speculation. ⁵

Amongst other inquiries and auto-ethnographic methodologies, this essay, traverses into the temporalities of weaving, by reflecting upon or questioning- Sennett’s definitions of a craftsperson ⁷, Crawford’s experiences with craft ², Albers’ writings on Weaving ¹, Fabian’s dialogue around understanding the relationship of and defining ‘Self’ and ‘Other’ ³, Koselleck’s metaphors of a pattern of recurrence and surprise ⁵, Kubler’s remarks on the temporalities of things ⁶, and Zerubavel’s representations of temporal optics ⁸.

On weaving

While it can take pages and perhaps volumes of books (as there already have been) to understand the complex processes associated with weaving, for the purposes of this text, a simple understanding of the practice is as follows. (To quote no reference in particular, but just sharing a personal comprehension), weaving, in a conventional sense, is a process of interlacing two sets of yarns, namely warp and weft, orthogonally, through countless possible configurations (called weaves), to fabricate a textile, using a machine called a loom. The warp is a vertical set of yarns, held in tension on the loom, while the horizontal weft is passed to and fro through the warp.

The practice of weaving is not only limited to the act of weaving itself, but has several other pre and post weaving processes associated with it, such as warping- where one prepares the warp threads, drafting- where one sets those warp threads onto a loom, unwinding- once done with the process of weaving, finishing- as the name suggests, to give end finishes and trims to the final outcome.

While much has been said about the relation of time and labor, this essay explores the thought of temporally experiencing the modalities of the processes of weaving, materiality of the one being woven, it probes at the patterns and repetitions associated with weaves, think about the agency behind the weaver and their tools’ participation in the process, and more. Thus, much like Zerubeval’s Time Maps, the essay is a design inquiry through weaving, of the temporal sociomental representations, and less about the Politics of Time.

On woven metaphors

The woven metaphors are wielded far too often for one to not feel saturated by them, yet there is a familiar acquaintance to them that helps one make sense of the incomprehensible. And what is more incomprehensible than Time? And as Fabian quotes Confessions, Book XI in his book, Time and the other, “What is time? If no one asks me about it, I know; if I want to explain it to the one who asks, I don’t know.” ³

On that note, while wanting to be aware of Temporal experiences, one must analyze and attempt to unravel the metaphors, and question- What exactly is the fabric of Time? Is it a multi-layered fabric, woven from the binary entity of the loom of existence? Or is it just two-dimensional? What are the yarns that weave the fabric of Time? How does diverse materiality affect and change the fabric of time? The patterns of recurrence of weaves shape the form of the fabric of time; What exactly are those recurring events? Does this draw parallel to Koselleck’s theories of Recurrence? ⁵ Can we understand conflict and contradiction through the metaphors of entanglement and knots? Who is the weaver? Who has agency over the fabric of time, the weaver, the material, the loom? Where does one situate oneself in this scenario of temporal weaving, and does that confirm Fabian's concerns about ‘othering’ them from us? ³ Why is tension so crucial to the process of temporal fabrication? What does the force with which one weaves say about the structural integrity of the fabric? How does the process of embodied involvement in crafting shape the experience?

Just as the categorial status of Goethe’s concepts frequently shifts according to the metaphorical power and direction with which he invests them, the following modalities of weaving uses aforementioned metaphorical inquiries as a methodological tool to think deeply about Time.

On weaving processes

“The greatest invention of the nineteenth century was the invention of the method of invention. A new method entered into life. In order to understand our epoch, we can neglect all the details of change, such as railways, telegraphs, radios, spinning machines, synthetic dyes. We must concentrate on the method itself; that is the real novelty…”
- [Alfred North Whitehead in ‘Science and the Modern World’]

As previously introduced briefly, weaving is not just the action of interlacement and fabrication, but the processes that precede and follow that action (warping, drafting, unwinding finishing, and others). Do they act like causes and consequences? While seeming linear and sequential in its temporal nature, these processes can be conceived as much more than simple chronology. Participation and action through one process is consequentially forming and shaping all the other processes to come, or reflecting upon the ones to have happened.

Starting with pre-weaving processes, warping is when the quantity of a single yarn is planned, which in turn translates into the length and width of the fabric, and also affects the density of the fabric. Drafting is when individual warp yarns are attached to the loom, which later allows the weaver to control the weaves while weaving by lifting and dropping the set of warp yarns. While the post-weaving processes of unwinding and finishing have almost tangible power over the outcome of the practice. Mishandling these processes at the slightest can undo the meticulousness of the pre-weaving and weaving processes. The temporal division of responsibilities, and power is almost unfair. But does the presentness of these powerful post-weaving processes justify their control over the fabricated outcome? How powerful is the power of the present over the past and even the future?

Even though these processes are sequential, each decision, each mistake, each calculation ties invariably into various future outcomes, and reflect upon as well as are responsible to carry the burden of the past actions, while retaining their independent modalities.

This leaves one with a rather complex inquiry- What is the temporal politics of different weaving processes?

On woven materiality

“The history of things is about material presences which are far more tangible than the ghostly evocations of civil history.”
- [George Kubler in ‘The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things’]

The material of the fabrication, its behavior, and most importantly its relation with the tools and the weaver define the crafted outcome to a great extent. Moreover, it simultaneously governs the woven processes. All the calculations of different woven processes vary based on the material. The thickness of the yarns and the type of the fibers control the duration of the warping and drafting processes, since thickness of the yarn decides the quantity (length) of the warp yarns. And similarly the yarns, and their content governs how complex or easy the post-weaving processes of finishing will be. For instance, the process to clean a woolen fabric is different from cotton or a silk one. The physical properties of the material while weaving also governs the difficulty or ease of weaving. Anni Albers touches upon this dialogue in the book On Weaving: “Weaving deals with a submissive material. But since it is building a whole out of small parts — a process that is time-consuming by its very nature — the invention of time-saving devices has always been a primary concern.” ¹ One can argue that time-saving is not always the primary concern when it comes to crafting, considering, the duration of involvement largely contributes to the emotions of a craftsperson, Albers’ comments on the submissive nature of the woven material is also of paradoxical nature. While, one beats the weft yarns during interlacement for a stronger structure, and the flexible nature of materials associated with weaving can be considered submissive, it is almost also the opposite. The nature of the material controls the duration of processes, interaction of the weaver with their tools, duration of the fabrication itself. Even Kubler, in the book, The Shape of Time, recognizes the lack of significance given to materiality by social sciences, when he writes, “The social scientists describe material culture as an epiphenomenon, that is, as the necessary result of the operation of forces which the social scientists have already formulated and charted.” He further goes on to say, “The figures and shapes described by the history of things are moreover so distinctive that one asks whether artifacts do not possess a specific sort of duration, occupying time differently from the animal beings of biology and the natural materials of physics. Durations, like appearances, vary according to kind: they consist of characteristic spans and periods, which our generalizing habit of language makes us overlook, since we can transform them so easily into the common currency of solar time.” ⁶

A material,seemingly spatially submissive, can, infact be quite domineering temporally.

On weaving Applications

The process of weaving itself is laced with spatial and visual symbolism of recurrences. Weaves are repeated vertically across the width of the fabric, and are woven in repetition across the length as well. Variation in these repeats generates diversity in patterns or structure or both, in a fabric being woven. Some have more interlacement, creating more tension (plain weave), some have less interlacement creating a softer feel (basket or satin weave), while some weaves are somewhere in between with adequate interlacement while still giving a flexible structure (twill weaves).

The nature of repeats controlled by the loom mechanism and the weaver is more than mathematics. It reflects the culture of the weaver, and the material into the fabrication, as the repetition also creates aesthetics. It signifies cultural evolution that runs parallel, and perhaps interconnectedly to the innovative evolution of tools. It signifies the utilization of the material as well. To go back to quoting Kubler again, (who has very interestingly discussed the form and design of Time, in his book The Shape of Time), “The occurrence of things is governed by our changing attitudes towards the process of invention, repetition, and discard. Without invention there would be only stale routine. Without copying there would never be enough of any man-made thing, and without waste or discard too many things would outlast their usefulness.” ⁶

This emotion of repetition further gives space to metaphors that arise out of absence of repetition. Koselleck, while talking about error, writes, “... an “ error,” an intellectual misconception, a defect of reason, which, even if it does not offer the explanation, may free our self- questioning from the double bind of fate and evil.” ⁵ Recurrences not only shape the theories of time directly, but absence of repetition (not unlike a negative result in a scientific experiment), gives equal insights into comprehending the emotions behind temporal experiences.

And it is not just about patterns of repetition in weaves, but symbolization in movement as well. Weaving is like a language. The western culture comprehends it from left to right, top to bottom; the east asian culture from back to front, top to bottom; and the middle east culture from right to left, bottom to top. And while enough has been said by theorists about linguistic evolution and temporal implications, what does that mean for the language of weaving? One often weaves from bottom to top, and the horizontal movement is oftentimes unaligned with a direction. The spatial recurrences signify comfort and discomfort, in return contributing to temporal participation.

For instance, if one is familiar with a weave, the movement will come naturally, however, if one changes the weave, it affects the speed of weaving, to get familiar with the movement. The interference of repetition interferes with the temporal flow, due to the change in participatory movement. The application of weaving and participation go hand-in-hand.

What does these repetitions do to the fabric of time, what do changes in the repeating pattern signify, and what does absence or gaps in recurrences tell us about our temporal experiences?

On participation

Moving away from experiential inquiries to more reflective ones, one of the significant parts of weaving is participation and embodiment. But whose participation? Who has the agency over the fabricated outcome? The processes, the material, the tools, the weavers, or the participants not involved directly in the process of making?

Richard Sennett in his book, The Craftsman, mentions an encounter, “The painter Edgar Degas is once supposed to have remarked to Stéphane Mallarmé, ‘‘I have a wonderful idea for a poem but I can’t seem to work it out,’’ whereupon Mallarmé replied, ‘‘My dear Edgar, poems are not made with ideas, they are made with words.’’ ⁷ And it is still difficult to decide on the percentage of agreement and disagreement on this statement. Are the tools more important than the maker? Or is the skill rather necessary to circumvent the lack of tools accessible? While this essay does not claim to answer any of the questions raised, it merely ponders over the theory of ‘self’ and ‘other’ by Fabian in his book Time and the Other. Who are ‘self’ and ‘other’, and at which temporal and spatial stage during the process of weaving? Does the absence of one or the other give hints towards an answer? ³

A loom is of binary nature, with two sets of yarns, warp and weft; in two directions, horizontal and vertical; moving either up or down, yet, a loom can weave multiple layers of fabrics called double cloths. One can get a multi-faceted outcome from an extremely binary mechanism, if only one knows how to act on it. The same mechanism, the same tools, the same weaver, the same processes, the same materials, can produce diverse outcomes through the process of variation in participation. Koselleck speaks of the dependency of theorists of time upon spatial metaphors. The metaphorical power of all images of time emerges initially from spatial visualizations [Anschauungen],” that time can only be visualized through movement in specific units of space, as temporal concepts like progress (Fortschritt) or development (Entwicklung).” ⁵

To what capacity can participation affect the temporal fabric enough to make a difference?
What does one understand by participation? Who has agency over the fabric of time?

Conclusion

Theories about time are often easy to challenge and criticize, and often difficult to formulate, because, as explored in the essay, temporal experiences can be experiential, tangible, materialistic, speculative, or all of these, and more.

Understanding time through woven processes makes one inquire, in which ways the temporalities of what we understand to be past, present, and future, are interconnected.

Experiencing time through material, challenges one to look beyond the defining characteristic, and into the affective nature of a subject of time- how submissive nature of material actually controls the various processes of weaving.

The woven applications of repetition of weaves and familiarity of patterns acts as a comfortable space to understand the temporal recurrences, and use it to rethink and critically question the theories of time through absences and glitches in these recurrences.

The embodied experience of participation in the process of weaving is crucial to think about the power of involvement and control.

The essay is an inquiry designed to question temporal experiences, and experiential time, through different modalities of weaving. Does it make one more aware of Time?

Bibliography

1. Albers, Anni; On Weaving; Princeton University Press; 1935.

2. Crawford, Matthew; Shop class as soulcraft; The Penguin Press; 2009.

3. Fabian, Johannes; Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object; Columbia University Press; 1983.

4. Kojève, Alexandre; Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit (English); Basic Books; 1969.

5. Koselleck, Reinhart; Sediments of Time: On possible histories; Stanford University Press; 2018.

6. Kubler, George; The Shape of Time: Remarks on the history of things; Yale University Press; 1962.

7. Sennett, Richard; The Craftsman; Yale University Press; 1943.

8. Zerubavel, Eviatar; Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of Past; The University of Chicago Press; 2003.