Time as a concept has always played a significant role in the evolution of sociality. If we follow human history, from the very beginnings of civilization, there have been attempts to encompass and control time. From astronomical observatories like Stonehenge, calendars, sundials, and clepsydra, people have tried to define moments which could later be used to orient themselves with respect to the past, but more importantly, with respect to the future. In this sense, the only concrete existence is the present, while the past and future are constructs we use to determine our actions. However, while the past is fixed, the future is its complete opposite—indefinite. To define it, we use means from both the past and the present. In this sense, Luhmann (1976) talks about the future present and the present future. While the future present is one of the possibilities that will crystallize over the flow of time, the present future refers to our attempts to "swim" in the uncertainty that awaits us. In any case, time is truly an intrinsic property of consciousness (Berger and Luckmann, 1992), which means that our actions are always intertwined with temporality. There is no action without being conditioned by the moment, the past, and the future.

We have already written about this phenomenon of time as a kind of social construct in previous texts, but in this text, we pay special attention to the consequences of the modern, more precisely, late-modern, construction and use of time. Although pre-modern societies had a need to define time, it would be wrong to say that these societies were as burdened with time as modern societies are. The capitalist system has played a very important role here. This is evident even in Marx's works, where he considers concepts such as value and production. Also, one of Benjamin Franklin's most famous slogans, "Time is money," truly reflected the entry into a new stage.

Of course, it is quite difficult to reduce changes in the cultural and social foundation to causal relationships with capitalism, but what we can say is that the capitalist system of economic relations was a sufficient irritation for society and culture to develop a special pattern of relations that give time a central position. Thus, Hartmut Rosa (2013) speaks of accelerating modernity. He claims that modernity is characterized by a specific relationship to time, where the past, present, and future quickly interchange and intertwine. This results in a feeling of instability and insecurity because society is constantly changing. This was also observed by Zygmunt Bauman (2000), who spoke of liquid modernity, a state in which values and structures change so rapidly that there is no chance for solidification and therefore no social security.

What both authors consider are the ways in which individuals adapt to/or suffer from this process. Although an important topic, which Rosa, for example, considers in terms of resonance theory (2019), we will start from a slightly different standpoint in this text. We will not consider how society creates an atmosphere of anxiety, but we will analyze what structural determinants drive an anxious individual to create meaning of the world. The basic question that needs to be asked is this: how can we describe today's society in which the concept of time has become a central value? In this question, it is inevitable to include the categories of cultural and/or cognitive capitalism and consumerism. These are concepts often used in sociology, referring to the later phase of capitalism in which symbolic categories become objects of fetishization in both production and consumption. In a sea of products and possibilities, time is the only thing that is limited for us. Therefore, we will try to save time for potentially better experiences, products, relationships. Even when something is worth our time, that value is limited. When time is the ultimate socio-cultural value, any experience can only be given a certain amount of time. I spent time on something. Even this phrase speaks to that value of time. We invest time in someone or something. This leads to the fact that social and cultural categories have become something that an individual must manage economically. I don't have time; I didn't have time to meet you for a drink… Social relationships become the opportunity cost of lacking time. But this is not the case only with social relationships. Lack of time also applies to other aspects of our lives—business, scientific, educational challenges—all of which are included in the evaluations of an anxious individual about what and how long to do. The answer often falls down to how long—the answer is little. Because little, or at best, limited, is the only thing we can "invest" in a society where we are asked to do other things within the limited sum of our lifetime. Ultimately, the day lasts 24 hours, and we need to sleep.

To organize ourselves in such a world where we invest or spend time on someone or something, we must become superficial. Depth is not something that can result from this approach to things or people. We saved time at the expense of depth of understanding. If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both. We have, however, caught both, but only in a symbolic sense. We caught the image of these rabbits but remained hungry.

But can the individual be blamed for this way of relating to reality? How can one focus on depth if depth means falling behind? Hartmut Rosa also speaks about the concept of dynamic stabilization in which we must move faster and faster (both as individuals and structures) to stay in the same place (to not lose our current position). Investing large amounts of our time turns out to be a significant risk. What if we wasted that time in vain? We could say, therefore, that the extension of the risk society (see Beck, 1992) is a society of superficiality—a society that has developed mechanisms of resistance to in-depth understanding of phenomena. It is best to know, do, and experience a little bit of everything, and social structures lead us precisely towards this understanding. The formal organization of society or certain social systems supports this claim. For example, the publish or perish culture in science, conditions for advancement, the increasing insecurity of scientists' jobs, lead us into the iron cage of scientific production, in which we must produce regardless of whether this production is meaningful or valuable. The shift away from theory in sociology also supports this. Focusing on methodology and research without theoretical reflection and understanding is easier and requires less time because, ultimately, we do not have time for extensive readings and continuous self-improvement through demanding theoretical texts of the past.

Philosophy is not exempt from such events. The value of analytical philosophy is therefore manifested only through the structure of a superficial society. Because the popularity of analytical philosophy stems from its time efficiency and semantic simplicity, I am grateful, therefore, that Hegel, Husserl, and Merleau-Ponty, lived in a different time, in a different social structure. Today, these authors could be marginal, and their success questionable precisely because of the complexity of their writing. Such a style requires time and today they are important more traditionally and paradigmatically than because it is worth reading. Education is encompassed by similar problems. In a sea of obligations, students are taught to manage their time. Time management seems to be one of the key educational aspects of education.

Programs like ChatGPT have caused a lot of controversy both in the scientific and educational systems due to their use for writing scientific papers, seminars, assignments, and so on. However, what has not been pointed out in the debates regarding generative AI programs is precisely this structural problem that existed even before genAI, which this technology has only exposed—it is the problem of a culture and society of superficiality in which form is the decisive category, and content is just an incidental point for achieving certain goals. Therefore, instead of focusing solely on regulating these technologies, we can rightly, at least within the framework of education and science, ask how to address the problem of superficiality caused by the iron cage of bureaucratization in which contemporary cultural-capitalist society has found itself.

The superficiality of individuals, therefore, we could say, is the result of a superficial society in which time is the basic currency. Social inclusion depends on the ability to adapt and jump from one case to another, from experience to experience, without creating deep relationships. Thus, we have completely subordinated experiences, people, phenomena, and knowledge to having in contrast to being (see Fromm, 1976).

References

1 Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Polity Press.
2 Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publications.
3 Fromm, E. (1976). To have or to be? Harper & Row.
4 Luhmann, N. (1976). The Future Cannot Begin: Temporal Structures in Modern Society. Social Research, 43(1), 130–152.
5 Rosa, H. (2013). Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. Columbia University Press.
6 Rosa, H. (2019). Resonance: A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World. Polity Press.