Everyday life in the real world

#everyday-life #empirical-methods #work-leisure-distinction #colonization-of-everyday-life #lefebvre #de-certeau #small-details #time-geography

Everyday life in the real world

Author: Neil Maycroft
Year: 2007
Source type: article
Raw file: raw/articles/maycroft_2007-everyday_life_in_the_real_world.md

Summary

Maycroft's discussion paper critiques the emerging academic orthodoxy around everyday life studies, arguing that (1) the politics of everyday life should be approached empirically rather than only philosophically or culturally; (2) claims that critique can be built from "small details" need qualification—theory often goes in search of validating details rather than letting details lead theory; and (3) the orthodox work/non-work (everyday) distinction is blurrier than many accounts suggest. The empirical case study is the removal of the 8.42am Nottingham-to-Lincoln train service in 2002, tracing six concrete consequences (disruption, time reorganisation, overcrowding, fare increases, wasted time, increased costs) that show how work increasingly frames everyday life. Maycroft concludes that for many people, everyday life is increasingly a source of frustration and pressure from which escape is limited, and suggests it may be "increasingly apt to speak of resistance to everyday life" rather than resistance from it.

Key Claims

Empirical over philosophical/cultural approaches: "The politics of everyday life are just as fruitfully approached through empirical study as they are via philosophical or cultural contemplation." Philosophically and culturally driven accounts "fail to take account of the 'reality' of everyday life as experienced by the very people on who's behalf they often argue they are undertaking their analyses."
The "small detail" problem: Many accounts claiming to build theory from small details are actually "'theories' in search of a validating detail"—details supporting a pre-existing theoretical model are favoured over those that don't. Starting with trivial details also risks "simply producing a catalogue of minor irritations and moans which are then disingenuously linked to wider social processes."
Work/everyday distinction is blurred: "The orthodox distinction between everyday life and non-everyday life in terms of work and non-work realms needs qualification." The empirical example shows "life suddenly revolved around work and the journey to work a little bit more than it did previously."
Six consequences of the train service removal: (1) Widespread lack of anticipation/late arrivals; (2) Reorganisation of daily routines (getting up earlier, bathroom scheduling, children to school); (3) Wasted time (half-hour daily, 2.5 hours weekly); (4) Overcrowding and less restful journeys; (5) Inadequate carriage capacity (single vs. double carriage); (6) 25% fare increase (£6.00 → £7.50), forcing passengers to "work more in order to be able to pay more to get to work."
Work frames everyday life: "Everyday life was framed a little more by the imperatives of work." The removal of the service meant "extra time and an increased proportion of income becomes devoted simply to getting to work."
The interpenetration of everyday lives: "One's everyday life is always someone else's non-everyday life, that is, their work life, and vice versa." Different groups (commuters, retail workers, cleaners, station staff, beggars) experience the same space/time differently.
The unemployed and the rich: "For the unemployed and the rich, the distinction between work and everyday life is largely irrelevant while the nature in which they attend to their respective survival needs is not." The unemployed "either have all everyday life or no everyday life depending on how we demarcate it from 'work'."
Colonization and resistance: "Where there is an experience of everyday life, rather than its Utopian possibilities, it is, for many people, at most a respite from non-everyday life pressures and repressions and to the extent to which everyday life is increasingly prey to 'colonisation' of time, of the need to attend to survival needs, and so on, it increasingly becomes a source of frustration and pressure itself from which escape is severely limited."
Resistance to everyday life: "Instead of 'resistance' originating from everyday life it may be increasingly apt to speak of resistance to everyday life."

Connections

Concepts: everyday-life, colonization-of-everyday-life, work-leisure-distinction, empirical-methods, time-geography, habitus, the-social

Authors: lefebvre-henri, de-certeau-michel, felski-rita, bourdieu-pierre, arendt-hannah, upton-dell

Debates: theory-of-the-everyday, everyday-vs-iconic-architecture

Direct Quotes

"Everyday life is that aspect, portion, time of one's life that is conducted away from institutionally defined or organised activities. In terms of a common sense understanding it is life outside of work, school, hospital, prison and so on, with the most distinctive opposition seen to be the one between one's time at and away from work." (p. 1)

"Against this negative critique of everyday life, many commentators argue that everyday life also represents a milieu of Utopian aspiration against these negative dynamics, a repository of 'authentic' human relations and activities, a bulwark against the increasingly 'programmed' character of contemporary life." (p. 1)

"The problem with philosophically and culturally driven accounts seem to me twofold; firstly they tend to proceed from reified conceptions which are then applied to the concept of everyday life and, secondly, in their explicit disavowal of the usefulness of empirically-driven accounts they fail to take account of the 'reality' of everyday life as experienced by the very people on who's behalf they often argue they are undertaking their analyses." (p. 2)

"Many of the accounts which claim to do this actually read to me as though they are 'theories' in search of a validating detail, that is, the theory arrived at was never in question and that what has happened is that details which support the move towards a particular theoretical model are favoured and considered at the expense of any other details that do not afford such analysis." (p. 3)

"Life suddenly revolved around work and the journey to work a little bit more than it did previously." (p. 4)

"Again, everyday life was framed a little more by the imperatives of work." (p. 5)

"Paying more to get to work simply to work more in order to be able to pay more to get to work!" (p. 6)

"One's everyday life is always someone else's non-everyday life, that is, their work life, and vice versa." (p. 8)

"For the unemployed and the rich, the distinction between work and everyday life is largely irrelevant while the nature in which they attend to their respective survival needs is not." (p. 9)

"Where there is an experience of everyday life, rather than its Utopian possibilities, it is, for many people, at most a respite from non-everyday life pressures and repressions and to the extent to which everyday life is increasingly prey to 'colonisation' of time, of the need to attend to survival needs, and so on, it increasingly becomes a source of frustration and pressure itself from which escape is severely limited (maybe through fantasy, extreme experiences, drugs, alcoholism, madness)." (p. 10)

"Instead of 'resistance' originating from everyday life it may be increasingly apt to speak of resistance to everyday life." (p. 10)

Open Questions

What would an empirical methodology for everyday life studies look like that avoids both "catalogues of minor irritations" and "theories in search of validating details"?
If the work/everyday distinction is increasingly blurred, what conceptual framework should replace it? Maycroft suggests attending to "survival needs" but doesn't fully develop this.
What would "resistance to everyday life" look like in practice? Is this distinct from Lefebvre's "critique of everyday life" or de Certeau's "tactics"?
How does Maycroft's empirical approach relate to Bourdieu's habitus or Upton's materialist grounding of the everyday?
Does the train service example generalise to other domains of everyday life, or is commuting a special case where work/everyday boundaries are especially porous?