Living in the wrong time

The debate over permanent daylight saving time has moved beyond the premise of energy savings; today, it is back on the agenda along the axes of sleep patterns, geography, productivity, and public health.

The roots of this debate are not new. Although the initial idea dates back to Benjamin Franklin in the 18th century, the actual implementation of the practice dates back to 1916. During World War I, Germany and Austria-Hungary moved their clocks forward to save coal. Subsequently, many countries, led by the UK and the US, adopted this practice. In other words, the summer-winter time application was fundamentally a product of crisis periods.

This practice, which became regular from the 1970s onwards, was also brought to Turkey. Every autumn and spring, as clocks were moved forward or backward, we as a society asked the same question: “Is there really any benefit to this?”

Scientific studies are quite clear on this matter: There is no significant saving. Many academic studies reveal that the summer-winter time application is neutral in terms of energy savings. Even if the need for lighting decreases in the evening hours, the increased need for lighting and heating in the morning hours balances out this gain. Moreover, today's energy consumption model is entirely different from the early 20th century when daylight saving time was designed. LED lighting, automation systems, 24/7 digital infrastructures, and fixed working hours make the impact of clock changes largely meaningless.

Evaluations conducted in Turkey yield similar results. Despite this, the narrative that “savings are being achieved” is persistently maintained in the public sphere, and this narrative does not align with the actual situation. Since 2016, Turkey has abolished the summer-winter time application and switched to a permanent daylight saving time arrangement; it remains in the UTC+3 time zone throughout the year.

Fixing the clocks does not end the debate; it only changes the direction of the debate. Because the issue does not just have an energy dimension. The human body has a biological clock, or circadian rhythm, set according to sunlight. The primary reference for this system is not clocks, but daylight. While natural light received in the early morning hours advances the biological clock, mornings started in the dark delay this clock. In Turkey, since 2016, starting the day in the dark, especially in the winter months, has become an ordinary part of daily life, and the price of waking up before sunrise is paid in the biological and psychological realms. 

It is precisely at this point that the real issue of the summer-winter time debate emerges: sleep patterns. To understand this situation, it is sufficient to look at historical and anthropological studies. According to today's scientific data, the sleep pattern we accept as natural and normal is not an immutable rule of biology; it is a relatively new habit produced by modern society. Uninterrupted night sleep is an exceptional situation for most of human history. Studies show that in Medieval Europe, people lived with a two-part sleep pattern. It is known that during this period, people slept shortly after sunset, woke up towards midnight; in this intermediate period, they chatted, walked, and even engaged in productive activities, and then transitioned to a second sleep.

DISCIPLINED BODY, SUPPRESSED RHYTHM

The problem of modern society is that it has eliminated this historical diversity. This pattern, which was common in the Middle Ages, was abandoned with the industrial revolution, and sleep was redefined not according to daylight and biological rhythm, but according to fixed working hours, factory shifts, school start times, and administrative time arrangements. In the sense described by Michel Foucault, modern power establishes time not only as a mechanism that measures, but as one that disciplines the body through time. 

Over time, bodies get used to this order. However, this habituation does not mean that the biological rhythm is naturally re-aligned. As in Foucault's analysis of the disciplinary society, what is at stake here is not the improvement of the body; it is to make it obedient, predictable, and synchronized. In other words, the circadian rhythm does not disappear; it is suppressed and pushed into the background.

Practices like summer-winter time, as a continuation of this disciplinary time regime, are based on the rigidity of the social calendar, not the flexibility of the biological clock. The problem experienced today becomes clear right here: The human body has broken away from the light-dark cycle to which it could historically adapt; however, this rupture is not a natural evolution, but the result of a continuous compulsion. For this reason, especially when exposed to morning darkness, the body no longer has the biological flexibility to respond to this in a healthy way. 

TIME CONFLICTING WITH GEOGRAPHY

To this biological dimension, another geographical problem is added in Turkey: the difference between local time and administrative time. Turkey has an east-west longitudinal difference of approximately 76 minutes. With the permanent daylight saving time application, western provinces fall more than 1 hour behind natural daylight.

According to TUIK data, in cities where 41.5% of Turkey's population lives and which produce 53% of the economy, people have to wake up before sunrise in the winter months. This situation moves the debate from the level of personal comfort-habit to the dimension of productivity and regional justice. In other words, Turkey's economic weight is in the west; however, the administrative time operates according to the light cycle of the east.

This picture leads to three results:

• Sleep and attention performance are determined according to administrative time instead of natural light.

• The start of the education and working day is imposed not on the biological clock, but on the western provinces that fall into the background geographically.

• The energy saving debate gives way to a debate on productivity, health, and efficiency.

Research reveals that starting the day in the morning darkness increases distraction, prolongs the feeling of fatigue, and triggers depressive moods. Children and young people are particularly affected by this situation. In bodies forced to wake up in the dark, the immune system weakens due to the disruption of the circadian rhythm; susceptibility to infections increases. A decline in learning performance is observed in children who go to school in the dark. Furthermore, an increase in traffic accidents occurs more frequently during these periods. At this point, the issue is no longer a matter of individual comfort; it is a public health issue related to the physical and social costs of disciplined time.

In Europe, the debate is now being conducted along the axis of human health and quality of life, not energy. Some countries advocate for permanent daylight saving time, while others advocate for permanent winter time. The common point is this: Instead of playing with clocks, rethink the work and education order.

For Turkey, the issue is not technical, but strategic, and the options are on the table. Returning to seasonal time application is one of them. Another is regional time arrangements that take into account the country's east-west difference. One of the most rational options is flexible working and school hours. In the digital age, there is no scientific justification for continuing to accept the rigid working hours of the 20th century as data.

Because the time issue is not just an administrative preference; it is a decision that has a direct impact on biological rhythm, social organization, and public health. The price of measuring time with a clock rather than light is paid first in the body and then in the city. What needs to be done is not to impose administrative time on people, but to bring the work and education order closer to the rhythm of light and biology. If permanent daylight saving time does not provide energy savings but produces physical and social costs, only one question remains: Which time are we operating, and for whose benefit?