Dd201_Tma1

Outline and analyse Rita Felski’s argument in ‘the invention of everyday life’. I will outline Rita Felski’s argument in the invention of everyday life and also discuss how her argument agrees and disagrees with other sociologist such as Lefebvre. Rita Felski’s argument in the invention of everyday life is about the cyclical and linear structure of everyday life, and also how women are associated with repetition and spatial dimensions of everyday life. Everyday life is based on cyclical repetition, which is events that occur in a particular order, which are often repeated, such as eating at regular meal times, working the same shift pattern, and going to bed at the same time. This can also occur on a larger scale, such as having an annual holiday or the weekends which is repeated at expected intervals. At the beginning of Felski’s essay stands Lefebvre’s fascination with repetition as the typical feature of everyday life, in opposition to the contemporary drive towards progress and accumulation. In Lefebvre’s view repetition is a contradiction to the self-understanding of modernity as a permanent progress and an obstruction to it., basically Lefebvre favours linear, forward moving, abstract time of modern society as opposed to the natural rhythms of everyday life. Felski linked the linear and cyclical structure more to historical gender coding. Felski argued that masculinity stands for models of transformation, e.g. natural changes and development over time and femininity stands for repetition and cyclical time, e.g. reoccurring daily things that are ordinary and in no way unique. Felski’s view of why women are associated with reoccurrences differs from other writers like Simon de Bauvoir who claims that women are doomed to enslavement (1988, p.610). Felski’s view is more along the same lines as Lefebvre who see’s women as embodied subjects and closer to nature due to their bio-rhythmical cycles such as menstruation and pregnancy and The fact that women are still primarily responsible for the repetitive tasks in domestic setting such as housework and bringing up children. Against the view of Lefebvre, Simon de Bauvoir and others which view everyday life as lagging behind the historical possibilities of modernity because of the reliance on repetition; Rita Felski argues that due to repetition, e.g. what is understood as ritual, we are able to transcend by connecting to out ancestry and tradition. She also argue further that continuity and routine are crucial in early child development and also in adult life in order to develop out individuality, and also so that we are able to have organisation in the world. Therefore repetition is not opposed to transcendence but an important factor of it. Opposing factors such as the cyclical and linear, the everyday and the modern, the feminine and masculine are not contradicting each other, but are necessary components which we progress through to help us make sense of our past. For Felski, the linear is a modern and progressive component. This is presented by Lefebvre as positive and desirable. This can often be imposed on individuals against their will, and can be accompanied by insecurity, stress and pressure. Whereas continuity and repetition often serve as a source of security, dignity and autonomy within contemporary life. Home is one of the different dimensions of everyday life; it is often associated with familiarity, protection and warmth and for many philosophers is seen as a fixed point of space. For Felski, Lefebvre’s ‘being at home in the world’ is a contrast to the general feeling of insecurity, decay of known structures and values of contemporary society. Also the celebration of mobility, the demand for flexibility and the communication hype. Basically our restlessness and the need for constant activity is rather anti-home, and is not really fitting to the views of home as a space of familiarity, security and warmth. Home is thought to be a highly gendered space which provides familiarity, but it also provides dullness and inactivity. Feminist’s tried to demystify the home as being the ideal of heaven and personification of women, by more freedom and agency through movement in recent attempts. Also by the assumption that contemporary society is in less need of a home because of the high level of mobility; which places a lesser importance on the home. For Felski home needs to be viewed from an alternative angle, as she believes familiarity and routine are not dull and lagging. She believes in the reality and ideology of the home, and contemporary society plays an impact on shaping the home, this is due to the struggles and boundaries. Each home is individual. Home is not only about origin but is shaped by what experiences and circumstances we have experienced. Home should fulfil all needs, such as being a retreat away from the noisy and hectic world and also a place to attach to a person memories and dreams. Felski shows us in her essay that complex circumstances can’t be explained only by theory. Lefebvre’s explanation of everyday life is focusing on cyclical and linear time, repetition and forward moving, by opposition, labelling one as being damaging and the other as modern and progressive. When the dimension and difficulty of gender and space combined, the miracle of everyday life becomes even more complex, and I believe needs a more diverse approach as Felski rightly insists. Repetition is not opposed to transcendence. Likewise modernity is not desirable in any form, and also has its own downsides. Key factors to bringing order to our world and forming identities are continuity and routine. In my view the stereotypical view of the classic housewife, that come from theories of repetition, and how femininity is linked to cyclical time do not meet the complexity and variety of everyday life. I also disagree with the feminist reaction against it, as these in my opinion do not provide evidence for the argument. Therefore In my opinion Felski had correctly argued that neither can capture home for what it is, as there will always remain certain continuities between the past and the present.