Applying Rita Felski's Theory Of Everyday Life
The concern of sociologist to investigate the concept of ‘everyday life’ has been a long running historic debate that can be traced as far back, according to some theorists, in works from ancient Greece and medieval Christianity. However Henri Lefebvre argues ‘everyday life’ is a product of the nineteenth century (Lefebvre.1984 pg.38). To understand the scope of these concerns and investigations this essay will begin with an explanation of the theory of ‘everyday life’ and précis the concerns of several prominent sociologists who recognised the importance of everyday life in shaping their own philosophies. Using Rita Felski’s example of ‘space’ in everyday life where the division between men’s public work and women’s private work appears
…show more content…
deeply gendered to demonstrate some of the problems and limitations of the concept of everyday life. By understanding the drivers that motivated investigation into the ‘everyday’ this essay will conclude by stating whether these sociological investigations are justified.
Everyday life is described as the ordinary habitual and mundane things we enact on a daily basis. Actions like eating, sleeping, dressing, shopping, brushing our teeth the things we do without having to consciously think about them. The sociology of everyday life explores how our social interactions and the way we live is influenced and shaped through social systems and institutions (Giddens,2006; pg.158).
History then and now provide us with accounts of the extraordinary events, the dramatic moments, the high profile ‘names’ of people who are at the forefront of historic occasions, but these are events that don’t simply happen in the ‘everyday’. That many prominent sociologists encapsulate within their concepts and theories the everyday lives of individuals in society provides an understanding of why they were concerned to explore and investigate the subject. Adam Smith considered it was the social division of labour that served individuals everyday needs (Smith, 1937), while Parsons’ theory of social action attempts to explain how decisions of individuals in respect of goals and norms determine the quality of social structure in everyday life (Parsons, 1949).
French historian Braudel, in his three-volume history of economic order ‘Civilisation and Capitalism’, reflects the importance of the ‘everyday’ in that he dedicated volume one to ‘the structures of everyday life’ (Braudel,1981). Norbert Elias deemed everyday as a key sociological concept asserting matters in the way everyday life occur seem to pass without the actuality of anyone pausing to think what they may mean. It was his belief that everyday life was ‘loaded with the freight of theoretical reflection” (Elias, 1998, pg.167). However, Henri Lefebvre as well as Michel de Certeau focused their perceptions on Marxist theory. Lefebvre demonstrates the interrelation of space and time in the understanding of everyday life, his approach being that everyday life concentrated on his assertion that urbanisation was the setting for a capitalist system that alienated and victimised people and imposed an ethos of unquestioned rules.(Lefebvre, 2003). On the other hand De Certeau outlines a distinction between strategies and tactics in respect of repression versus expression. He maintains strategies are used in organisational power structures while those who are subjugated employ tactics highlighting the importance of human activity in the everyday viewing this as an opportunity to provide different conclusions to the capitalist ‘strategies’ of domination (Certeau,1984).
Conversely Pierre Bourdieu’s hermeneutic interpretation of how people focus, read and understand their everyday lives is an objective analysis of the structures that encompass, limit and influence social life. He argues people’s activities are at the same time determining and determined by the social world. He believed that habitus or socialised norms, governs behaviour and thinking (Wacquant 2005: 316, cited in Navarro 2006: 16).
The explicit sociological theme of everyday life was further investigated later in the twentieth century through the work of historian EP Thomson (1964) in his study of the lives of workers and that of Raymond Williams’ (1958) focus on the importance of culture in how humans conduct their everyday life.
Everyday life when debated, even by Sociologists, is peppered with genderisations. To understand this from a feminist viewpoint we look to Rita Felski who explores the many facets of everyday life by questioning and scrutinising ‘everyday’ as a concept within itself. Felski sets out to investigate and define ‘everyday life’, by looking at three key areas of time, space and modality and how they are usually associated with women and gender. She aims to consider three facets of ‘everyday’ by looking at time and its repetitive nature, space: through the ‘sense of home’, and modality: through the experience of ‘habit’. Much of Felski’s research is based on the works of Lefebvre, Heller and Schutz, and provides a dialogue and argument from many points of view (The Invention of Everyday Life, New Formations, 1999/2000, pg 18).
In order to understand the ‘everyday’ Felski debates the concept as a ‘temporal term’, in that it can be seen to be repetitive and something that occurs ‘day after day’ (pg 18). In particular, it is argued that women are in a continual cycle of repetition, mundane activities, and due to this can be seen as ‘doomed to repetition’ and ‘enslavement’ (pg 19). Felski looks to the works of Lefebvre, who labels time as cyclical; repetitiveness, which hinders progress and lacks modernity (pg 19). On the other hand, Felski argues that routine and stability comes from repetition, helping to develop ‘identity as a social and inter subjective process’ (pg 21).
In addition to time, Felski also looks at the idea of ‘home’, which is expressed as the space where everyday life takes place. It can be argued that the home is a highly gendered space, is ‘static’ and ‘conservative’ and attachment to the home is perceived as a ‘regressive desire’ (pg 23). In contrast to this view Felski argues that ‘home is complex and temporally fluid’ (pg 25), and as such is constantly evolving and is ‘central to many women’s experience of modernity’ (pg 26).
The third facet to Rita Felski’s thesis is ‘habit’; the familiarity of everyday life.
Habit is something that is associated with repetitiveness and routine, and is ‘ingrained’ (pg 26). However, whilst habit may appear as a natural occurrence, postmodern theory dictates that the habitual must be handled with ‘critical vigilance’ (pg 27). On the other hand, Felski states that, according to Heller, routine and habit is a prerequisite for survival. It is something that is essential for ‘impulse and innovation’ (pg 27). She reaffirms that the everyday, according to feminist perspective, is a gender issue; with one line of feminism portraying everyday as the means in which ‘gender hierarchy is reproduced’ (pg 30), and another conversely stating that it is a ‘source of value’ and strength (pg 30).
Felski therefore provides a broad narrative from traditional, feminist, postmodern and phenomenological theory. Her methodical explanation of these definitions of everyday life is thorough and at the same time she questions them by providing counter arguments. One of Felski’s conclusions is that by romanticising everyday life and associating it as a women’s issue detracts from the fact that men also live ‘repetitive, familiar and ordinary lives
(pg.31).
In conclusion, this essay has outlined a brief explanation of what ‘everyday life’ is, and provided a synopsis of views from notable sociologists whose own theories and concepts recognised the importance of ‘everyday life’ in their own ideas and beliefs. The significance of investigating the study of time and space in everyday life demonstrates how common themes in every aspect of social interaction occur. Sociological approaches to everyday life capture and recognize the importance of social relationships, experiences and practices. By understanding the different perspectives of everyday life demonstrates how common themes can become accepted as part of society and culture. It provides intelligence into many social situations and the impact these have on culture, race and gender and identifies the organizational power structures that encompass, limit and influence social life. Sociological concerns and investigation of everyday life are therefore justified and important as they explore the ways in which people act and relate to others, provide an avenue to affect change and challenge misconceptions.
deeply gendered to demonstrate some of the problems and limitations of the concept of everyday life. By understanding the drivers that motivated investigation into the ‘everyday’ this essay will conclude by stating whether these sociological investigations are justified.
Everyday life is described as the ordinary habitual and mundane things we enact on a daily basis. Actions like eating, sleeping, dressing, shopping, brushing our teeth the things we do without having to consciously think about them. The sociology of everyday life explores how our social interactions and the way we live is influenced and shaped through social systems and institutions (Giddens,2006; pg.158).
History then and now provide us with accounts of the extraordinary events, the dramatic moments, the high profile ‘names’ of people who are at the forefront of historic occasions, but these are events that don’t simply happen in the ‘everyday’. That many prominent sociologists encapsulate within their concepts and theories the everyday lives of individuals in society provides an understanding of why they were concerned to explore and investigate the subject. Adam Smith considered it was the social division of labour that served individuals everyday needs (Smith, 1937), while Parsons’ theory of social action attempts to explain how decisions of individuals in respect of goals and norms determine the quality of social structure in everyday life (Parsons, 1949).
French historian Braudel, in his three-volume history of economic order ‘Civilisation and Capitalism’, reflects the importance of the ‘everyday’ in that he dedicated volume one to ‘the structures of everyday life’ (Braudel,1981). Norbert Elias deemed everyday as a key sociological concept asserting matters in the way everyday life occur seem to pass without the actuality of anyone pausing to think what they may mean. It was his belief that everyday life was ‘loaded with the freight of theoretical reflection” (Elias, 1998, pg.167). However, Henri Lefebvre as well as Michel de Certeau focused their perceptions on Marxist theory. Lefebvre demonstrates the interrelation of space and time in the understanding of everyday life, his approach being that everyday life concentrated on his assertion that urbanisation was the setting for a capitalist system that alienated and victimised people and imposed an ethos of unquestioned rules.(Lefebvre, 2003). On the other hand De Certeau outlines a distinction between strategies and tactics in respect of repression versus expression. He maintains strategies are used in organisational power structures while those who are subjugated employ tactics highlighting the importance of human activity in the everyday viewing this as an opportunity to provide different conclusions to the capitalist ‘strategies’ of domination (Certeau,1984).
Conversely Pierre Bourdieu’s hermeneutic interpretation of how people focus, read and understand their everyday lives is an objective analysis of the structures that encompass, limit and influence social life. He argues people’s activities are at the same time determining and determined by the social world. He believed that habitus or socialised norms, governs behaviour and thinking (Wacquant 2005: 316, cited in Navarro 2006: 16).
The explicit sociological theme of everyday life was further investigated later in the twentieth century through the work of historian EP Thomson (1964) in his study of the lives of workers and that of Raymond Williams’ (1958) focus on the importance of culture in how humans conduct their everyday life.
Everyday life when debated, even by Sociologists, is peppered with genderisations. To understand this from a feminist viewpoint we look to Rita Felski who explores the many facets of everyday life by questioning and scrutinising ‘everyday’ as a concept within itself. Felski sets out to investigate and define ‘everyday life’, by looking at three key areas of time, space and modality and how they are usually associated with women and gender. She aims to consider three facets of ‘everyday’ by looking at time and its repetitive nature, space: through the ‘sense of home’, and modality: through the experience of ‘habit’. Much of Felski’s research is based on the works of Lefebvre, Heller and Schutz, and provides a dialogue and argument from many points of view (The Invention of Everyday Life, New Formations, 1999/2000, pg 18).
In order to understand the ‘everyday’ Felski debates the concept as a ‘temporal term’, in that it can be seen to be repetitive and something that occurs ‘day after day’ (pg 18). In particular, it is argued that women are in a continual cycle of repetition, mundane activities, and due to this can be seen as ‘doomed to repetition’ and ‘enslavement’ (pg 19). Felski looks to the works of Lefebvre, who labels time as cyclical; repetitiveness, which hinders progress and lacks modernity (pg 19). On the other hand, Felski argues that routine and stability comes from repetition, helping to develop ‘identity as a social and inter subjective process’ (pg 21).
In addition to time, Felski also looks at the idea of ‘home’, which is expressed as the space where everyday life takes place. It can be argued that the home is a highly gendered space, is ‘static’ and ‘conservative’ and attachment to the home is perceived as a ‘regressive desire’ (pg 23). In contrast to this view Felski argues that ‘home is complex and temporally fluid’ (pg 25), and as such is constantly evolving and is ‘central to many women’s experience of modernity’ (pg 26).
The third facet to Rita Felski’s thesis is ‘habit’; the familiarity of everyday life.
Habit is something that is associated with repetitiveness and routine, and is ‘ingrained’ (pg 26). However, whilst habit may appear as a natural occurrence, postmodern theory dictates that the habitual must be handled with ‘critical vigilance’ (pg 27). On the other hand, Felski states that, according to Heller, routine and habit is a prerequisite for survival. It is something that is essential for ‘impulse and innovation’ (pg 27). She reaffirms that the everyday, according to feminist perspective, is a gender issue; with one line of feminism portraying everyday as the means in which ‘gender hierarchy is reproduced’ (pg 30), and another conversely stating that it is a ‘source of value’ and strength (pg 30).
Felski therefore provides a broad narrative from traditional, feminist, postmodern and phenomenological theory. Her methodical explanation of these definitions of everyday life is thorough and at the same time she questions them by providing counter arguments. One of Felski’s conclusions is that by romanticising everyday life and associating it as a women’s issue detracts from the fact that men also live ‘repetitive, familiar and ordinary lives
(pg.31).
In conclusion, this essay has outlined a brief explanation of what ‘everyday life’ is, and provided a synopsis of views from notable sociologists whose own theories and concepts recognised the importance of ‘everyday life’ in their own ideas and beliefs. The significance of investigating the study of time and space in everyday life demonstrates how common themes in every aspect of social interaction occur. Sociological approaches to everyday life capture and recognize the importance of social relationships, experiences and practices. By understanding the different perspectives of everyday life demonstrates how common themes can become accepted as part of society and culture. It provides intelligence into many social situations and the impact these have on culture, race and gender and identifies the organizational power structures that encompass, limit and influence social life. Sociological concerns and investigation of everyday life are therefore justified and important as they explore the ways in which people act and relate to others, provide an avenue to affect change and challenge misconceptions.