Everyday life, everyday life. Structures of everyday life What is everyday life? Everyday life? What is

EVERYDAY LIFE - concept, in most general. plan means the flow of ordinary, everyday actions, experiences, human interactions. Everyday life is interpreted as the entire socio-cultural world in which a person exists just like other people, interacting with them and the objects of the world around them, influencing them, changing them, experiencing, in turn, their influences and changes (A. Schutz). Everyday life turns out to be in the interweaving of the world of familiar objects, emotional feelings, socio-cultural communication, daily activities and everyday knowledge. Everyday is familiar, natural, close; what happens every day does not cause surprise, difficulty, does not require explanation, intuitively possible and self-evident for a person, fixed in her experience. The forms, content and means of everyday interactions are recognized as "their own", in contrast to external, institutionalized forms and rules that do not depend on the will of the individual, are perceived by him as "other", "etiquette". The everyday does not exist as the unusual, the unexpected, the individual, the distant; what does not fit into the familiar world, is outside the established order, refers to the moments of the emergence, transformation or destruction of the individual and collective life order.

Everyday life arises as a result of the processes of "povsyakdenyuvannya", which have forms of learning, mastering traditions and consolidating norms, in particular, memorizing statements, rules of various games, handling household appliances, mastering the norms of etiquette, the rules of orientation in a city or metro, mastering typical for a person environments of life patterns, ways of interacting with the environment, means of achieving goals. An alternative to opovsyakdenyuvannya is "overcoming everyday life" - the emergence of an unusual, original in the processes of individual and collective creation and innovation, due to deviation from stereotypes, traditions and the formation of new rules, habits, meanings. The content and form of the unusual, in turn, are included in the process of enrichment, in which they enrich and expand the sphere of the ordinary. A person exists, as it were, on the verge of the ordinary and the extraordinary, which are linked by the relationship of complementarity and reciprocity.

Sociol. analysis of life style focuses primarily on the social meanings that are constructed and exchanged by members of society during their daily interactions, and on social actions as about the "activation of these subjective meanings. According to P. Berger and T. Luckmann, everyday life is reality, which is interpreted by people and has subjective significance for them. The basis of interpretation is ordinary knowledge - іntersub "active and typol. organized. It consists of a set of typol. definitions of people, situations, motives, actions, objects, ideas, emotions, with the help of which people recognize the situation and the corresponding pattern of behavior, establish the meaning of order and achieve understanding. In a specific situation of communication, we automatically, without realizing this process, typіzuєmo a person - as a man, an egoist or a leader; emotional experiences and manifestations - joy, anxiety, anger; interaction situation - as friendly or hostile, everyday or official. Each of the typifications assumes a corresponding typical pattern of behavior. Thanks to typifications, the everyday world acquires meaning, is perceived as normal, well-known and familiar. Typifications determine the current attitude of most members of society to nature, tasks and opportunities of their lives, to work, family, justice, success, etc., and make up socially approved group standards, rules of behavior (norms, customs, skills, traditional forms of clothing, time management , labor, etc.). They create a general outlook, have a concrete history. character in a certain socio-cultural world.

In everyday life, a person considers it obvious that her interaction partners see and understand the world in a similar way. A. Schutz called. this is an unconsciously used assumption by the "thesis about the reciprocity of perspectives": the characteristics of the world do not change when the places of the participants in the interaction change; both sides in interaction assume that there is a constant correspondence between their meanings, while recognizing the fact of individual differences in the perception of the world, which is based on the uniqueness of biographical experience, the characteristics of upbringing and education, the specifics of social status, subjective goals and objectives, etc.

Everyday life is defined as one of the "final semantic spheres" (V. Dzheme, A. Schutz, P. Berger, T. Lukman), to each of which a person can ascribe a property of reality. In addition to everyday life, the spheres of religions are distinguished. faith, dreams, sciences, thinking, love, fantasy, play, etc. Each sphere is characterized by a certain cognitive style, consisting of a number of elements of perception and experience of the world: a specific tension of consciousness, a special eros h e, the predominant form of activity, specific forms of personal involvement and sociality, the originality of the experience of time. The description of the characteristic features of the cognitive style inherent in everyday life is its total. definitions in phenomenol. sociology: everyday life is a sphere of human experience, which is characterized by a tense - active state of consciousness; the absence of any doubt about the existence of the natural and social world, the leading form of activity is labor activity, which consists of putting forward projects, their implementation and changes as a result of this surrounding world; the integrity of personal participation in life; the existence of a common, intersub "actively structured (typified) world of social action and interaction (L. G. Ionin). Everyday reality is an exit in human life experience and is the basis on which all other spheres are formed. It is called" the highest reality. "

Everyday life is the subject of many sciences, disciplines: philosophy, history and sociology, psychology and psychiatry, linguistics, etc. Various studies are focused around the problems of everyday life, including: history. F. Braudel's work on the structures of everyday life, linguistic analysis of the everyday language of L. Wittgenstein, studies of the folk speech and laughter culture of M. Bakhtin, the mythology of everyday life by G. Worth, the psychopathology of everyday life by S. Freud, the phenomenology of E. Husserl and numerous concepts of the sociology of everyday life.

How does your day start? Maybe from a run in the morning? Maybe with coffee? And then what? Work? Or, if you are a student, then a college, or an institute, a university? There are many questions that you should not just have, but develop them. Decorate, like a sentence with adjectives, like a Christmas tree with toys. I present to you a brush, and you will choose the watercolor.

When to start? When to get together and ... and color your morning, your day, evening? In any way. Which one do you like?

Music

What kind of music do you listen to? What genre do you like? Or even pace? Would you like to learn not only to listen, but also to create creativity? Try yourself. You have to try, you have to try. Take a look at the internet. How do you make music? Inspiration, broad-mindedness. Here's what will help you. Guitar, piano, these are the instruments that I can play. I play, I come alive due to this. The heart is drowning in harmony. Those who have not tried it will not understand. If there is no Internet or you have a bad one, then what to do? Many people who face this problem always get out of this situation. Music can be found everywhere. Just hear her. Someone will say that I write empty words. And these someone simply do not believe, there is no faith, and from this the music will not find you, and you will not find it. Music changes over time. New genres confuse people's brains. But of course, it depends on what genres. And I do not deny the opinions of others. I just presented my point of view. Do not forget those feelings experienced by you. Buy a tool. Learn with books, video tutorials on the Internet. Diversify your life. And imagine. You wake up, do, as usual, all your morning chores: breakfast, exercise, or something else. After that, before leaving where you need to hurry, you sit down at your guitar and play your favorite music, which comforts you and envelops you with a blanket of calmness and mood for the whole day.

Books

Ever read a book? Or is your mind already drowned in the virtual world? I used to start reading a book, but after reading only half of it, I started doing other things, and then I forgot about that book, the book I had not read. Soon I started reading a book with a smaller volume. And I read it to the end. And he concluded that the book is interesting not only in volume, but also in content. Soon I found a book on more, called "The Man Who Laughs" (Victor Hugo). A very interesting book, only with a slightly tedious beginning. In my spare time, I read it. Remember! The book does not reveal the future for you, it only shows your real inner world. It helps to understand yourself!

Sport

Who would like to know how long he will live? The majority answered that they did not want to know this. Well, the rest admitted that they did not mind. Let's say you found out. How would you like to change that? Probably everyone wanted to live longer. And to do this you need what? You need to change. Moreover, for the better. Not sitting on a social network all day, all your studies, and even the entire weekend, but kick your asses up and run. Run until your lungs let you know that you are tired. You can extend your life and even more diversify it with someone with whom you should get to know. This will be your new friend - SPORT. If you are lonely, then sports will dispel your loneliness. If you are offended or angry with someone, then sports will relieve stress, just like a friend. Will always help. And again an example from the morning. Waking up, you feel sleepy, not squeezed out of the lemon. Go under the shower. Although it helps to cheer up, it does not help warm up and stretch the bones, not a shower, but a jog in the morning. Just imagine, you are running through the city. The city is asleep. Silence. The breeze while running caresses your sleepy face. Eyes watery from the wind. The sun rises with you. Music accompanies your pace, your heartbeat, your breathing.

The body says THANKS to you.

These three ways have helped to make my everyday and similar life just brighter, just brighter and just better.

Everyday life: a brief history of the concept

Despite the fact that everyday life has been under the gun of artists for two centuries, art theory has not offered a consistent interpretation of it. Drawing on the legacy of psychoanalysis, sociology and critical theory, Nikos Papasteriadis offers a fresh perspective on the daily life of the modern world. Today it is the everyday life that provides the key to counteracting the homogenization of culture and the suppression of human individuality. T&P is publishing a translation of a chapter from Spatial Aesthetics: Art, Place and Everyday Life, translated by the V-A-C Foundation as part of a collaborative project.

Throughout most of the 20th century, the concept of “everyday life” rarely surfaced, being considered an unimportant component of sociological tradition. It was popularized in the 1980s as part of the cultural research controversy and entered the discourse of contemporary art in the mid to late 1990s. The emergence of the concept of everyday life in the forefront was followed by a period of confusion and uncertainty in the field of theory. After decades of intense debate over the relationship between art, power and discourse, there has been a lull, with no new work on the meaning of the social context of art emerging. It seemed that the introduction of the concept of everyday life was a neutral designation for a variety of forms of artistic practice. If the relationship between art, politics and theory had reached an impasse, then the concept of everyday life was supposed to help discover specific forms of life experience that guide the artist's work and interact with politics, without being guided by any theory with biased ideological attitudes.

Although this popular interpretation of the concept of everyday life may have contributed to the recognition of the specific position of art and its relationship with other socially significant activities, the history of ideas underestimated this concept. The concept of everyday life can remain neutral only as long as it is used in the most direct and familiar sense. Over the course of the 20th century, it periodically shifted: from a simple designation of the everyday elements of social life to a critical category, which was not only opposed to the materiality and totality of modern culture, but also served as a means to redefine reality in order to induce social transformations.

Russian formalists were among the first artists to rethink the relationship between art and everyday life. Recognizing that art always has a dialectical relationship with other cultural events, they invented new artistic practices that were directly involved in the materiality of production and various forms of media. The shift in perception of everyday life was not limited to artists, because, as John Roberts noted, in the early stages of the Russian Revolution, both Lenin and Trotsky recognized the importance of critical portrayal of the everyday. They believed that literature, cinema and theater could build "proletarian culture" from a new universalist position:

"Everyday life was to be created not on the basis of the narrow cultural experience of the working class, but on the basis of the entire world culture, a particularly rich contribution to which was made by the forms of European bourgeois culture, as well as world culture in general, which the proletariat inherited as the vanguard of all mankind."

In February 2015, the V-A-C Foundation launched a new program for the implementation of art projects in the urban environment of Moscow “Expansion of space. Artistic Practices in the Urban Environment ”, aimed at recognizing points of mutual interest between art and the city, as well as researching ways of their interaction, adequate to the social and cultural life of Moscow. One of the most important tasks of the project is to stimulate public and professional discussion about the role and possibilities of public art in the modern Moscow environment. Within the framework of joint cooperation with the V-A-C Foundation "Theories and Practices", we have prepared a series of theoretical texts on public art and interviews with leading experts in the field of art in the urban environment, who share their ideas about the future of public art with readers.

Correlated with the history of the avant-garde, the concept of the everyday also re-evaluates artistic practices that the mainstream culture might find commonplace or marginal. From the Dadaists and Surrealists to Situationism and the Fluxus movement, artists have experimented, undermining the conventional use of everyday objects and the familiar associative ranks of modernist art. At the center of these experiments was not just the documentation of the artifacts and customs of the modern world, but also the fusion of artistic practice with new industrial techniques to unleash that creativity of modern life. These artistic unions were perceived as a vital force against the homogenization of culture and the suppression of individuality in the modern world. The habits of perception that are developed in the city were understood as “problems”. Early 20th century German sociologist Georg Simmel described this dulling of critical ability as a consequence of the satiety of life in the modern city. Maurice Blanchot emphasized this discovery when he defined the main property of modern culture as "boredom" - a form of consciousness where images lose their shape and "the citizen within us" falls asleep:

Through tactics of shock, juxtaposition and interaction, modernist artists tried to awaken the "citizen within us."

For Blanchot, everyday life was dressed in several intellectual, political and cultural straitjackets. Art was perceived as a means of exposing the totalitarian underside of social illusions and stimulating a critical perception of reality. Attention to the role of the voluntary and the subconscious in our daily life was endowed with a political and psychological dimension. In order to break the barrier of conventions, the functions of art expanded: from the transmission of a specific message, the avant-garde had to lead to the transformation of everyday consciousness. By presenting familiar objects from unexpected points of view, artists not only sought to reveal their hidden poetry, but to release a new, revolutionary understanding of reality. These ambitions were meant to support the controversy over the role of the artist. However, despite a long tradition of avant-garde experimentation and repeated attempts to break down the boundaries between popular culture and high art, the concept of everyday life still did not receive proper theoretical understanding in the framework of the discourse of contemporary art. Most of the theoretical works on the concept of everyday life belong to the fields of sociology, philosophy and psychoanalysis.

Dora Maurer, Time, 1972

Within sociology, the category of everyday life is clearly contrasted with other concepts that emphasize structural, transcendental, or ahistorical forces. The concept of everyday life was not a way to get away from social problems or avoid it altogether, but a means of rethinking the relationship between the private and the general, or how attention to the details of everyday life helps to reveal the essence of a wider system. However, in relation to art, the concept of everyday life received a different interpretation: it was believed that it differs from earlier theoretical models in that it neither tries to narrow down the meaning of art to a priori categories of a given political ideology, nor to explain its content based on pre-established psychoanalytic and philosophical categories.

To view art in the light of the concept of everyday life means to emphasize that the criterion for its assessment should not be borrowed from other discourses, but rather from its expression in everyday life. However, this goal of penetrating directly into the world of life, without resorting to the help of other discourses, cannot be achieved in its pure form. There is no direct access to the representation of everyday life. Theories of language, culture and psyche are so closely intertwined with each other in each of our attempts to present the details of the ordinary. While the concept of the everyday may seem like a new way of expressing the context of artistic practice, it must not be forgotten that it is rooted in a long-standing sociological and philosophical controversy about practice. In art history discourses such as “art and everyday life,” the transition from the art of living to the politics of social transformation can be traced.

The critical response to realism at the end of the 19th century and the associated attempts to broaden the subject matter of the visual arts were, in part, prompted by the revision of the bourgeois distinction between the noble and the ordinary, the beautiful and the ugly, the graceful and the ordinary. Major modernist fighters like Baudelaire had to pay particular attention to the vital representation of the “everyday”. I do not aim to illustrate how artists either fought this process or tried to tie the knots between art and everyday life, rather, I intend to contextualize this concept. As Scott McQuire pointed out:

“While the connotations of the term“ everyday ”have a controversial history, going from Marxist sociology (especially Henri Lefebvre's 1947 Critique of Everyday Life) and then passing through phenomenology and the Situationist International (The Revolution of Everyday Life by Raoul Vaneigem, published in 1967, was a supplement to Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle), in addition to becoming a doxa of modern cultural studies, its meaning has undergone significant changes. "

The genealogy of the concept of everyday life can be traced to a much more distant past, and the network can be spread wider. Mike Featherstone finds echoes of this concept in antiquity and relies in his research not only on the Marxist, but also on the phenomenological tradition. Ancient Greek philosophers scrutinized and actively debated what constituted a "good life." In the phenomenological tradition, the term “life-world” played a central role, and when Alfred Schütz introduced it to sociology, he defined it in relation to the heterogeneity of positions in action and thinking that conflicted with dominant, institutionalized actions and rationalized forms of thought. Agnes Heller's attempt to synthesize the phenomenological and Marxist traditions of everyday life led to its characterization as "covering different relationships, including reflexive relationships." These relationships include not only the locating “I” and helping to comprehend the world around, but also those relationships that have critical potential and can offer a vision of a “better world”. In her interpretation, everyday life is seen as an integral part of the self and society. It is the totality of both the relationships that form the "I" and the processes that form the world.

Although the concept of everyday life resembles an amoeba, whose composition and contours change depending on what it comes into contact with and what meanings it absorbs, it must be emphasized that it is still not outside the scope of theory and politics. The concept of everyday life is not limitless. Although it is defined contrary to unidirectional or reductionist theories of social transformation, it was not put forward to prove that there were some places that were completely open and free from any institutional constraints. The parameters of everyday life can be sharpened by comparing it with the opposite concept - non-everyday life.

Nam June Paik, Zen for TV, 1963/78

In sociology - especially in the ethnomethodological tradition - the concept of everyday life has been used to test whether a theory can resist either a modeling world that sets binding rules or a totalizing abstraction that establishes an exact sequence of causes and effects. The concept of everyday life also played an important role in rethinking the "place" of theory. If we understand the theory as acting inside, and not above or outside of a specific context, then this position, which implies that in the very structures and institutions of participation, there is a process of representation, will open to us such a level of criticism, create such an angle of view for us from where we can follow behind the exact configuration of currents and clashes in public relations.

Thus, the theory of everyday life found itself located in gaps, in gaps, on the outskirts and in the border zones of the social. The place and manifestation of everyday life was established, for example, when workers incriminate those moments that interrupt the monotonous course of work; or when we unexpectedly enjoy the products of popular culture, or when we take someone else's space and call it home, or even when a pop song so coincides with our inner state that it becomes our anthem. Everyday life was intended to show that there are pockets of resistance, adaptation tactics and reflexive forms of agency, which the essentializing and structuralist models of social theory did not take into account.

Given the restless and disruptive dynamics of modernity, this modality is best suited to comprehend the feeling of displacement and rupture so symptomatic of our time. The concept of everyday life in critical theory has been closely related to the conflict between freedom and alienation in modern times. More pessimistic offshoots of Marxist theory - especially theorists influenced by Adorno's writings on the negativity of culture - believed that at best, everyday life echoed the coercive forces of modernity, or, even worse, that it was a manifestation of the false political truce that is possible with capitalism. Henri Lefebvre, by contrast, was one of the first to claim that the concept of everyday life is a positive addition to Marx's concept of alienation.

Recognizing that capitalism creates social relationships that alienate people from their "ancestral essence" and from each other, Lefebvre also emphasized that the concept of everyday life can shed light on the complex ways in which subjects manifest their emancipatory and critical potential. Thus, Lefebvre marked a new place within the framework of Marxist theory. For Lefebvre, the significance of the concept of everyday life lies in the fact that it points to the way to overcome alienation. Lefebvre was convinced that alienation could not be overcome by political change alone. On the contrary, he noted that it only worsened under the Stalinist regime. Lefebvre believed that the energy contained in everyday life is filled with light. Unlike idealists who viewed everyday life with arrogant contempt, Lefebvre believed that creative reflection on everyday life could lead to a desire to transform society. He emphasized that popular art forms such as cinema and photography are radical in content and offer vague hope for a renewal of Marxist cultural theory.

René Magritte, "Ceci n" est pas une pipe "

However, Lefebvre's conception of the everyday was limited by the fact that he reproduced two flaws in the Marxist theory of alienation. First, the self-theory, which served as a counterpoint to alienated subjectivity, presupposed the existence of some kind of integral personality. Second, the emphasis on the commodification of labor in defining alienation overlooked the realm of non-economic labor. Alienation was thus reduced to the forms of one-sided relations between the individual and her work. According to Marx, if value is concentrated in the object of labor and if the worker is perceived as another commodity in the production chain, then the process of alienation of the worker from the product of his labor begins, which diminishes the sense of his own worth and leads to the reification of all social relations in the workplace. In the end, the worker feels alienated from his nature, his own essence and the consciousness of the totality of all human relationships. Therefore, Marx argued that the consequence of alienation is the loss of his generic essence.
In Marx's dialectic, the space of everyday life was defined as the reverse side of alienation. It is in him, as Marx argued, that the worker is freed from the pressure of labor relations and experiences a genuine sense of his own worth. In this space, according to Marx, it is possible to combine fragments of social reality with the essence of identity. Heller also continued this line of reasoning, emphasizing that the Marxist theory of "I" implies an obligatory union between the individual and the sphere of activity that forms society. Such an integral “I” is capable of both realizing the flow and fragmentation of social reality and offering criticism based on the synthesis of subjectivity and everyday life.

Lefebvre develops his theory, which is characterized by the logic of integration, implying by everyday life all those spheres and institutions that, in their totality and totality, "determine a specific individual." Considering different aspects of everyday life - from the choice of leisure to the organization of the household - Lefebvre draws our attention to the complex ways in which social structures penetrate our lives. This process of internalization is neither passive nor neutral. As external social structures penetrate into the daily life of the individual, he actively transforms them. This process of internalization has a twofold effect. It transforms the inner personal space, introducing elements of external structures into it, but at the same time it evokes a powerful response on the surface of the social. The two-way relationship between part and whole is a critical aspect of Lefebvre's theory. He believes that "unremarkable events of everyday life have two sides": they are marked by the arbitrariness of the concrete and and contain the essence of the social. Lefebvre believed that by tracing the reproduction of the whole in the practice of the partial, he was able to move away from the "base-superstructure" model, which made the Marxist polemic about culture meaningless. However, this double connection between the particular and the general, where the former was viewed both as the opposite and as an isomorph of the latter, led, in turn, to the fact that everyday life was dominated by another form of idealism.

Michel de Certeau's concept of everyday life goes even further and offers an understanding of everyday life that does not idealize the integrative logic underlying the Marxist tradition. Drawing an analogy between part and whole, de Certeau also proposes a displacement effect. He turns out to be more sensitive to those quiet shifts that occur with any act of internalization:

“The presence and use of some representation in everyday life ... does not indicate in any way what it is for those using it. It is necessary first to analyze how this representation is manipulated by those who resort to it, without being its producers. Only then can we assess the gap and the closeness that exists between the production of the image and the secondary production that is hidden in the process of its use. "

It is this quest to comprehend the difference between the laws, rituals, and representations imposed by the dominant order and the subversive practices of consent, adaptation, and interpretation by the powerless that supports Michel de Certeau's study of social relations. His focus is not on the intended effects of a social system, but on how it is used by the people who make up that system. For de Certeau, the politics of everyday life is aimed at the micro-ways in which people undermine the prevailing order. De Certeau traces two levels of responses to the overwhelming and homogenizing effect of modernity. The first is an ethical reaction that allows people within the framework of a particular social order to humanize their relations with each other. The second is the techniques of counteraction noted by de Certeau, which, in the conditions of a system that constitutes a popular majority on its periphery, give the weak the opportunity to hypocritically and ingeniously use the strong. De Certeau argues that these counter tactics are necessary, as a person increasingly finds himself in a situation where social structures are unstable, boundaries are mobile, and circumstances are too complex and extensive to be controlled or escaped from them.

From this point of view, de Certeau's concept of everyday life is significantly different from the views of Lefebvre. Given the complexity and diversity of the social field of everyday life, de Certeau does not undertake to assert that the part can convey the essence of the whole. Through changes in the forms of production, the relocation of the main centers of control, the rapid growth of international financial and speculative trade, the increasingly active penetration of the media industry into local cultures and the emergence of new migration routes, globalization has complicated and fragmented the social order. The identity of the social “whole” can no longer be represented by means of unambiguous categories and clearly defined boundaries. This redefinition of the identity of the whole also complicates the representational status of the part. For example, can the art of everyday life represent the life-world of the whole country? Or should we draw less extensive and more specific conclusions about the relationship between the particular, which is always a tactic in response to a range of conflicting demands, and the whole, which has become too complex and fragmented, which can hardly seem to be one? Now every person, at the micro-level of his daily life, is forced to show intelligence, cunning and resourcefulness, both in order to survive and in order to please himself. "These changes make the text as habitable as a rented apartment."

The metaphor of the house very well conveys the essence of this exiled era. According to de Certeau, our stay in the modern world, that is, our ability to penetrate into the present and make the meaning of our time memorable and positive, is like renting an apartment. Space does not belong to us, the structures are already set, and we will live here forever. However, the practice of living is not limited or predetermined by the architecture of the building. We move into an apartment with our luggage, furnish it with our memories and hopes, and bring changes that give shape to our wants and needs. The order in which our belonging to something is established is like the fingerprints of our social identity.

Fluxus

The home is full of emotive associations and social meanings, but unlike its historical predecessors, the modern home finds its identity in the oscillation between arrival and departure, integration and fragmentation. Zygmunt Baumann described our contemporary relationship with home not so much as a displacement, but rather as an unplacement. In addition to the fact that now more people live in distant and unfamiliar places, even those who have not gone anywhere are increasingly feeling the loss of a sense of place. The concept of home must be combined with a sense of belonging. "Home no longer implies a home - it is now an untold story of living life." The word "home" (home) should act as a verb, and not just as a noun. Because the house is no longer reduced to some place from the past, where our idea of ​​our own origin has a geographical definiteness; it also appears as a certain limit that avoids the present, but attracts us to search for new and new “destinations”. Like everything related to purpose, home evokes in us an endless desire to achieve it, but now we never succeed in experiencing the full and final sense of arrival. The meaning of the term “home” today combines the place of origin and our attempts to realize our purpose. To tell the story of a life spent in the home, we must do what John Berger calls "bricolage of the soul." When Gaston Bachelard applied the tools of psychoanalysis to the structure of the house, calling the attic Super-I, the first floor - I, and the basement - It, and thus putting forward the method of topoanalysis, he allowed us for the first time to look into the soul of architecture. Or maybe he guessed the architecture of the soul? Turning to such figurative techniques, Bachelyar showed how it is possible to establish meaning through the assemblage of the fragments that make up our home.

Psychoanalysis, which Freud directed to reveal the secret meanings of the banal and insignificant in everyday habits, was taken by Bachelard from its purely therapeutic context and transferred to the field of critical poetics. Psychoanalysis deepens our understanding of everyday life if its application is not limited to diagnostic and medical needs, but expands to the study of mental impulses in the constitution of the social. Although psychoanalysis is not able to rid us of all the disorderly desires and neurotic habits of everyday life, simply by “working through” their origin from the “primary scenes”, it brought us to an understanding of the repressed in everyday life, provided us with epistemological insight into the structure of the psyche and revealed the levels of the unconscious, hidden behind the generally accepted distinction between truth and falsehood. In one of his early works, "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life," Freud pointed out that something always goes out of sight, something remains unclear, even if a person sincerely expresses his views and strains his memory. According to Freud, this elusive "something" is in the realm of the unconscious. Despite Freud's persistent attempts to establish psychoanalysis in the status of a science, today it is of the greatest value as a creative method for extracting fragments of truth from our tacit denial and recognizing the traces they left in our everyday experience.

Drawing on the theories of psychoanalysis and Marxism, the Frankfurt school found even more itinerary of desire in everyday life. Adorno and Horkheimer realized that there were two significant shifts in politics. Unlike classical Marxists, they no longer believed that the proletariat could be seen as the vanguard of society, and they also lost the belief that internal historical dynamics would inevitably lead to the collapse of the capitalist system. Adorno and Horkheimer searched psychoanalysis for new clues to help explain the culture of survival. Defining their criticism against domination and power was the theory of the redemptive potential of memory. The function of memory was not limited to a nostalgic return to the past - it was intended to become part of an emancipatory project to reveal the elements of subjectivity and strengthen the reflective principle, suppressed by the instrumental rationalism of the modern world.

From this point of view, in which Marx's theory of alienation and Freud's theory of repression are combined, it can be argued that the dynamics of culture and the role of agency can never be reduced to only one negative or positive manifestation of material forms of production. If Marx's great contribution to social theory was that he brought the intelligentsia to the battlefield, then an equivalent epistemological achievement of Freud is the idea that the analyst is obliged, through the act of transference, to provide his own body as a model for revealing the meanings of the past and transforming everyday life. After Marx and Freud, the critical distance between subject and object was rethought. These theories have breathed hope into our understanding of the levels of freedom in everyday life. This gave rise to a new idea of ​​how much we are able to recognize the opportunities that are given to us within the framework of fate.

Agents cannot be perceived as merely “puppets” of an overarching ideology. By drawing attention to the complex, two-way relationship between agent and structure, theories of everyday life have challenged the notion that change can only be imposed from above or brought about solely by external forces. Everyday life became the concept that made it possible to understand that the strategies of resistance in the practice of life are not always openly oppositional. The heroism and ethics of everyday life do not appear before us in the guise of either a titan or a saint; instead, they manifest themselves in subtle acts of involvement and loss of place. The spirit of resistance does not always come down from above or come from outside - sometimes it originates from within.

It is important to emphasize the limitations of individual action. Choice is often confused with freedom, thereby exaggerating the scale of everyday life. Sociological controversy about subjectivity and everyday life tried to trace the radial network and mechanisms of critical response that connect individual choice and social structures. The individual's ability to make choices is always limited by the broader context, but these internal practices always affect external structures. Therefore, the flow was considered not only as descending from above, but as chaotically circulating and running in different directions. Since people consciously use the dominant structures, a double bias effect is created: at the micro-level, their subjectivity is affected, and at the macro-level, the boundaries of the system are shifted in accordance with specific forms of use. External forces are transformed in the process of their internalization by the subjectivity of the individual, which has a destabilizing effect on social structures and causes a shift in the initial state of identity. Thus, the notion of everyday life is part of the tradition of discovering the potential for critical practice and for putting forward alternative opinions about what constitutes a “good life”.

A key benefit of the concept of everyday life was that it emphasized the potential for transformation at the level of individual experience. She showed that radical gestures are also observed in minor actions performed by people in the course of their everyday life. However, as Lois McNay observed, cultural theorists began to stretch the emancipatory potential of everyday life and fetishize the micro-revolutionary gestures of individual practices. According to McNay, the critical dimension of cultural theory was disproportionately directed at the insignificant actions of the individual. Hybrid identities, assembled from the conflicting forces of everyday life, were seen as an ideal form of survival, not as a criticism of shared structures. By emphasizing the freedoms and pleasures found in "counter-cultural" activities, theorists began to erode the political process of confrontation. They increased the importance of the subjectivity of the individual and ignored the discussion of structural limits in the collective appropriation of power.

This material was sent to us by our regular reader Airat Yalaev.

In our daily routine, our life turns into a series of identical days.

What is the threat? Our brains are plastic, so the unused parts of the brain are absorbed by the ones we often use. For example, before (elementary grades) we knew all subjects approximately the same, but then at the university we received a narrow specialization and used only the information that we needed to perform our direct duties. And they got a specialist who calculates better than at school, but knows less about the development of the embryo, or has completely forgotten that the most durable tissue in the human body is tooth enamel. Yes, this is not important information, someone will think. Who cares if our skin is the coolest self-healing survival tool or how perfect our body is. But we also go to work by the same road that we drove a week ago, breakfast and dinner differ only in content. In some cases, this leads to a deterioration in the pace and quality of work, apathy, sadness and creative decline.

Which exit?

1. Read. Reading, we learn about how people lived and what they achieved. And we also get the fruits of the works of scientists who have devoted decades to the study of those topics for the study of which we would not have had enough life. It is a sin not to seize the opportunity to become an enlightened intellectual in our information age. When we can easily find the works of many recognized scientists on the shelves of bookstores.

2. Drink water a couple of hours before bedtime. Once I read about it in one article and decided to try it, just during this period the morning severity got tired of it. And lo and behold - one glass of water two hours before bedtime was the reason for the disappearance of heaviness in the morning.

3. Get active rest. And those who spend a lot of time online with colleagues and friends, and those who are offline (work at home, etc.) need rest. Having played tennis, football, volleyball at least once, having gone to the ski base, it will become clear how to relax with friends and colleagues.

4. Do not overeat and eat healthy foods. No matter how trite it may sound, we are what we eat. And this should not be in excess, because in fact we need very little to get enough. And most likely it is not in vain that we were given the feeling of satiety and hunger?

5. Contact relatives. Fortunately, some of us have relatives, so maybe we need to be grateful to this? After all, many of them have contributed to the development of our personality. In addition, a call from a distant relative will delight many, so let's start with ourselves and initiate a "good mood".

6. Do everyday things, just differently. Try to leave early tomorrow and take a different route to work. If you had breakfast at the table, this time try eating on the carpet, spreading the tablecloth. If on the way to your workplace you did not pay attention to those around you, then this time smile and say hello.

How do you propose to diversify our life with you?

What is daily life? everyday life as a routine, repetitive interactions an unreflective part of life, a matter of course the material life of a person, primary needs

Phenomenology Alfred Schütz (1899 -1959) Major works: The Semantic Structure of the Social World (An Introduction to Understanding Sociology) (1932) The Structures of the Living World (1975, 1984) (published by T. Luckmann)

the life world (Lebenswelt), this is the everyday world that always surrounds a person, in common with other people, which is perceived by him as a given

the world from the very beginning is intersubjective and our knowledge about it is somehow socialized attitudes of thinking n n mythological religious scientific natural

Practical meaning The concept of "gabiuts" (Pierre Bourdieu) Individual and collective habitus Fields of action and forms of capital The concept of practice

Habit is a system of stable dispositions of thinking, perception and action, a cognitive “structuring structure” l habit is a practical meaning, that is, it is below the level of rational thinking and even the level of language, this is how we perceive language l

Social practices Practice is an active creative transformation by the subject of his environment (as opposed to adaptation), the unity of thinking and action. Practical activity is determined by the subject's habit.

Field and space A social field is a network of relationships between the objective positions of agents in a certain social space. In reality, this network is latent (hidden), it can manifest itself only through the relationship of agents. For example, the field of power (politics), the field of artistic taste, the field of religion, etc.

Drama of interaction of social structures of everyday life Irving Goffman (1922 -1982) Major works: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959)

Interaction ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior (1967) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (1974)

analysis of frames our attitude to any situation is formed according to the primary model of perception, which is called "primary frames represent the" point of view "from which it is necessary to look at the event, then how the signs SHOULD be interpreted, thus they give meaning to what is happening, frames are primary (non-reflective) structures perception of everyday

Ethnomethodology Research in ethnomethodology (1967) The everyday world is built largely on the basis of speech interactions, a conversation is not just an exchange of information, but an understanding of the context of a situation and shared meanings, everyday conversation is built on indefinite statements that are deciphered over time and their meaning is not conveyed , but is cleared up in the process of communication

"Background expectations" The everyday world is built on taking it for granted, the reciprocity of the perspectives of its perception is not questioned, it is believed that everyone is able to understand the actions of others on the basis of common knowledge

Nutritional structures The subject of nutritional sociology is the study of nutrition as a social system, its task is to show the social, cultural, historical and economic conditioning of nutritional processes; to reveal the nature of socialization and social stratification in the process of food consumption, to explore the formation of the identity of a person and social groups through sets and nutrition practices.

The function of nutrition is stronger than all others: during a period of hunger, even pain and sexual reflexes are suppressed, and people are able to think only about food, - wrote P. Sorokin in his work "Hunger as a Factor: The Impact of Hunger on Human Behavior, Social Organization and Social Life" (1922)

in the life of human society, food is more fundamental than other needs, including sex. This idea is very important for sociology, because it essentially refutes Freudian psychology.

Being a primary human need, a material condition of life, food acts as an institution of socialization and a mechanism of social (and not just physical) reproduction of a group; in these processes, a social group restores the unity and identity of its members, but at the same time differentiates them from other groups.

Structuralism In his work “Towards the Psychosociology of Modern Food Consumption,” Barthes writes that food is not just a collection of products, it is images and signs, a certain way of behavior; by consuming something modern man necessarily denotes it.

Food is also associated by meaning - semiotically - with typical situations in the life of a modern person, food gradually loses its meaning as an objective essence, but is increasingly transformed into a social situation.

materialism Jack Goody “Cooking, Cuisine and Class: Study in Comparative Sociology” that food as an element of culture cannot be explained without knowing the mode of economic production and the associated social structure

The materialistic method in the sociology of nutrition explains why people, with all the variety of foods, eat the same way. It's not just the habit of the class, the economy is to blame. We eat what is sold in a nearby supermarket, what is offered to us by the economic system of the market and distribution of products, based on their understanding of the matter (standardization as a factor in increasing productivity).

Historical types of food systems Primitive societies “Humanity begins with the kitchen” (K. Levi-Strauss) Hunter-gatherer societies: the first food revolution appropriating the economy (F. Braudel) 500 thousand years ago

Food of the ancient world Neolithic revolution 15 thousand years ago The second food revolution: a sedentary lifestyle, a productive economy The emergence of irrigation agriculture The role of the state in the distribution of food

Example: Sumerian civilization writing and cooking: Sumerians (6 thousand years ago) Sumerian discoveries: wheel-sailing irrigation agriculture DOS. culture - barley drinks - invention of beer

invention of sweet: date syrup dairy products: way of storing milk (cheese) pottery and dishes: storage systems type of oven for cooking (lavash)

system of tastes At the heart of the taste of the ancient laws of nutrition is the observance of the balance of the elements. Every thing, including food, consists of four elements - fire, water, earth and air. Therefore, in cooking, the Greeks believed, the opposite fire against water, earth against air, cold and hot, dry and wet (and then - sour and sweet, fresh and spicy, salty and bitter) should be combined.

The social space of food in the Middle Ages, food as a need for the body suddenly receives a different moral assessment - Christianity calls for asceticism, restriction of nutrition, denies food as pleasure and pleasure, recognizes it only as a necessity - hunger was given to man by God as a punishment for original sin.

But on the whole, food - and this is extremely important - in Christianity is not divided into clean and unclean, the church unequivocally asserts that food by itself does not bring a person closer and away from God, in the Gospel teaching it is clearly shown: , defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth. "

Food in Christianity also loses the character of a sacrifice - this is its fundamental difference from Judaism and other (including monotheistic) religions. It is believed that one sacrifice is sufficient - Christ himself voluntarily sacrificed himself for the salvation of everyone, the rest of the sacrifices are simply inappropriate (including the sacrifices of various animals, like Eid al-Adha among Muslims

here's more news - they began to eat not lying, like the Romans, but sitting on chairs or stools at the table, finally, glassware and tablecloths appeared, and also a fork - from Byzantium it will come later to Venice,

Again, the culture of meat was revived for a while - war, hunting, game for the aristocracy, and pork (pigs graze in the forest, feeding on acorns) for the common people.

The opposition “Terra e Silva” (Land and Forest) in the food system became obvious, among the Franks and Germans “forest” became the basis of food against “land” among the Romans - meat against bread; beer versus wine; lard versus olive oil; river fish versus sea fish; gluttony ("healthy" = "fat" = "strong") versus moderation

the man of the Middle Ages sought to change the natural taste of the product, transform it, replace it with an artificial - spicy taste and aroma. This also applied to drinks - spices were added there without measure.

the Italian Renaissance - the greatness of sugar, it is still expensive, but it makes people happy, and it is added everywhere (in wine, rice, pasta, coffee) and of course - in desserts, while, by the way, the combination of spicy and sweet reigns, the sweet of that time both sweet and spicy at the same time. But soon the sweet taste will displace and rise on everyone

The modern food system The third food revolution, associated with the export of American products to other regions, bore fruit, but European cultures also mastered America, this feature - the interpenetration of agriculture - is an important characteristic of the modern food production system.

The industrial food system presupposes not only highly mechanized, standardized and automated agriculture based on scientific technologies for growing crops, but also the food industry itself.

The storage technology also influenced the production of food, because now it was possible to produce partially prepared foods and freeze them - semi-finished products. The modern food system changes not only the storage technology, but also the technology of food preparation.

The meaning of the kitchen is also changing. The task of chefs is now fundamentally different - to arrange semi-finished products, in this sense, the art of a cook has now become different, although it has not ceased to be an art

The modern industrial food system relies on new ways to trade food. Hypermarkets, as a rule, are united into a network, the largest is the Wal-Mart chain in the USA, it unites 1,700 hypermarkets around the world (they are designed in the same way), in the USA Wal. Mart controls - imagine about 30% of all sales

The structure of food has changed significantly: the first difference, if earlier all agricultural societies assumed carbohydrate nutrition as the basis, now protein nutrition will be considered the basis. Here is a significant difference - if before they ate bread, now they eat with bread.

The second difference is that if before a person ate what constituted the basis of food in his region (the Japanese do not eat more properly than we do, just seafood was the basis of their region's nutrition), now the food is delocalized - we eat food from all over the world, and often not according to the season.

The third fundamental difference in nutrition: industrial mass production of food products creates correspondingly massive identical tastes. This is an amazing feature of the tastes of modern people - we eat very, very monotonously.