Essentially the history of society is a person's everyday life in its historical dimension, which is reflecting certain immutable properties and quality in accordance with the fixation of new forms of housing, food, travel, work and leisure. The clue lies exactly in the analysis of everyday life; it gives answers to the question arisen often when we meet with specific fates: how people could survive and preserve human dignity in the extreme conditions of revolutions, wars, terror, hunger and devastation? How people adapted to some life circumstances? Everyday life is an object of scientific research for a range of humanities disciplines, among which there is no consensus even in the definition of the concept of «everyday life». The article analyzes some problems of the history of everyday life. It generalizes and systematizes the scientists’ opinions on the content and structure of concept «social everyday life». The author determines questions of social everyday life which are relatively good investigated. These are the questions of household, free time and lifestyle of people.
The term «everyday life» was introduced by F.Braudel. Recognizing that the name «is far from ideal designation» of essence of everyday stories, it was «adopted for lack of a better». Ludtke, however, believed that it justifies itself as a «brief and meaningful word, which is polemically against this historiographical tradition that had excluded the daily life from its vision» [1]. Of course, in general, studies of the history of everyday life are characterized by terminological eclecticism and methodological pluralism. Considerable variation in the interpretation of the concept of «everyday life» was reflected during the international conference on the history of Soviet everyday life held in 1994 in St. Petersburg. A decade later, M.M.Krom concluded that there is no universal and concept of «everyday life» suitable for all cases, whereby he defined «opovsednevnivanie» (the process of becoming everything as daily routine, everyday-isation) of the discipline history as a research tool [2].
Essentially the history of society is a person's everyday life in its historical dimension, which is reflecting certain immutable properties and quality such as new forms of housing, food, travel, work and leisure. The key is the analysis of everyday life; it answers to questions that arise when we encounter particular fates: how could people survive and preserve human dignity in the extreme conditions of revolutions, wars, terror, hunger and devastation? How did people adapt to life circumstances?
Everyday life appears seems comprehensible not because it is reflected upon, but because it escapes reflection. «Everyday life» is not analyzed until it is not disturbed by an extraordinary event, which will later be interpreted as a normal, everyday occurrence.
Everyday life is an object of research for a range of humanities’ disciplines, among which there is no consensus even in the definition of the concept of «everyday life». For example, sociologists use such concepts as «ordinary daily existence» or «sort of life / life style» as synonyms. Everyday life in classical sociology, as a rule, is understood as the non-productive spheres of people’s life, which are connected to the procedures of satisfying the material and spiritual needs in the process of life, recreation and socialization. Sociologists, even though they were analyzing the everyday life, in fact, did not consciously analyze it. Only occasionally it was seen as a problem: «The world of everyday life, even though it gives sociologists preferable research objects, itself occasionally is an independent object of analysis» [3].
However, analysis of phenomena of lifestyle in modern sociology is gradually replaced by a broader subject area — the sociology of everyday life. The main goal of the researchers is to study the formal and informal rules of interaction in a particular community or organization. Observing the interaction of the participants of practical activities, sociologists reveal mechanisms of constructing reality.. The goal of this observation is «to reveal formal properties of everyday, practical, based on common sense actions». The method of research is associated with problematization of everyday life: to discover the rules of everyday interaction, to «see» them, it is necessary to become a stranger to the habitual nature of everyday scenes, that is, to draw back [3]. Today the sociology of everyday life is becoming a discipline, its theoretical resources are not clearly defined, and the consensus of central categories has not formed yet. Concepts of the sociology of everyday life — «practice», «daily interaction», «order of interaction», «social situation», «frame», — do not form single conceptual frame. The basic category of the field — the category of «everyday world» — requires to clearer groundwork and conceptual development..
The term «everyday life» (German Alltaglichkeit) was proposed by A.Schutz for sociological conceptualization of the concept of «life-world», introduced in the scientific practice in the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl. In the works of A.Schütz and E.Goffmann «everyday life» was interpreted as the level of interaction of elementary orders -«face -to-face», [3:4] having its own organization and cognitive style [4].
Over recent years, researchers of the sociology of everyday life have significantly updated their theoretical and methodological tools. For example, philosophical and sociological understanding of the everyday life by Schützhave been critically reassessed in the 1990s. The approach formed on the basis of rethinking of Schutz’s phenomenology is presented, for example, in works of the German researcher H.Bardt, who has attempted to distinguish everyday situations and situations out of everyday life (border, crisis and drama, as well as moments of revelation and «soaring», situations that are experienced as «adventure» or life «turn»). Bardtemphasisesthat actually experienced situations are often «mixed»: as exclusively «situations out of everyday life» can be infused with everyday phenomena, and mundane everyday life can contain «exoticism of everyday life». The theory of communicative action of J.Habermasis based on opposition of «social system» and «life-world», which corresponds to two different types of rationality: instrumental and communicative. If the first side is connected to the adaptation of people to the environment and has orientation for the increasing of the material achievements, the other side is associated with the integration of people to the community and is aimed at increasing of the social cohesion [5].
Furthermore, recent works that understood and described everyday life well, led to a new approach where sociologists do not only study the actual situation of everyday life of modern cities and villages but, more importantly, self-awareness of their inhabitants, their subjective perceptions of themselves and the world around them, including objects, forms of communication and of the cultural institutions. It means that the subject of sociological research is not social reality, but the attitude towards it, forms of its representation in the minds of people. Sociologists of everyday life tend to find out how ordinary people explain to themselves and others their behavior, the choice of the particular action, of the step in communicating with people around, as well as the usual norms of work, leisure, food, parenting, family and romantic relationship in this society.
Within the framework of the contemporary sociology of everyday life a wide range of phenomena «inner lining» of society are studied. These phenomena are:
- zoning of the habitat space in everyday life (in the apartment and its rooms, in business and «sleeping» areas of cities, in the public and private transport) and at work;
- timing of everyday and weekend, of work and holiday period, as well as forms of leisure (domestic and club games, gymnastic trainings and sports, tourism, );
- role functions in different contact groups (family, office, club, etc.), tactics of language use and interpersonal interaction in specific institutions (educational, medical and prison);
- procedures of socialisation of different social groups (generations, men and women, members of the titular ethnic groups and migrants, );
- order of sleep, its housing and other real interior accessories (duration and quality of sleep, typological analysis of dreams, night clothes and poses of recreation, common and separated beds and bedroom for spouses and other family members, );
- forms of nourishment, beginning from the composition of the food basket to the order of communication between people eating at one table and their behavior at mealtimes;
- daily and festive rituals, etiquette modification (negotiation and visits of guests, parties at home and in special entertainment venues, weddings and funerals), uniforms and fashion (semantics of clothes and shoes, hair and makeup);
- status values of using sophisticated technology (car and kitchen equipment, computers and radiophone, musical instrument, );
- many other aspects of everyday spheres of human
For historical anthropology which was established in the 1970s, can be characterized, according to the definition of J.Le Goff, by the intention to cover «all the achievements of the new science of history, combining the study of mentality, material life, everyday life around the concept of anthropology» [6]. M.M.Krom in his research proceeds from the conception of deep inner relationship among the history of mentalities, historical anthropology, micro-history and the everyday life’s history [7]. This can be explained by the special attention of scientific approach given to the symbolism of everyday life, the manner of behavior, habits, gestures, rituals and ceremonies [8]. In turn, the historisation of anthropology has stimulated the micro-history with its specific interest in the symbolism of everyday life. Moreover, according to some researchers, the history of everyday life acts as a kind of micro-history, concentrating on the routine, but somehow entailing the study of historical anthropology and cultural localism, analysis of everyday life and factors of deviant behavior. Works on the history of everyday life, which are based on microanalysis, aspire to a smaller geographic and temporal localization, but, instead propose, an in-depth analysis of life stories of representatives of different cohorts, «networks» and their interconnectedness in private, home and work life.
If lawyers are interested in official, legal regulation of human behavior, then ethnographers reveal elements of customary law in it. Ethnographers, talking about everyday life, usually understand it as the category of «mode of life». However, the fundamental difference between the study of mode of life and the study of everyday life lies in the fact that the focus of researchers is not just the mode of life, but life's problems and their understanding by the contemporaries. In other words, if the ethnographer reconstructs life, the historian analyzes the emotional reactions of people due to the fact that they are surrounded in everyday life, focuses on the subjective experience of people. He seeks the answer thow a random event becomes first «normal exception» and then — common event. In addition, researchers of everyday life problematize «ethnography of everyday life» and «history of emotions» not only of the main classes, but also, above all, of small and discredited social groups.
Combining understanding of everyday life with the political culture, the history of everyday life permits to find out how individual perceptions affect personal’s everyday life, including in the existing political system. After all, political science differs from sociology largely because it uses ordinary household stereotypes and habits of the electorate in practical political struggle and social management. Moreover, the task is to influence purposefully these stereotypes and form new, desired by customers through advertising and network communications.
Indeed, the category of «everyday life» as a general concept for the various forms of community and interaction is too amorphous. Beginning from times of romanticism, everyday life is seen as «life vulgarity», stagnation and repetition, which is devoid of poetic meaning [9]. Thus, according to the interpretation of the German sociologist and philosopher Georg Simmel, everyday life is against adventure as a state of the highest tension of forces and special sensory acuity. Developing Spengler's theory of contrasting cultures, characterized by the state of creativity, and civilization as a period of creative stagnation, the German philosopher and social theorist Herbert Marcuse considered everyday life as a characteristic quality of civilization. On the contrary, A.Lefebvre defines everyday life as a basis of creativity acts, «place for Business and Labour». A.Heller has a similar view, in her opinion, the realization of natural human needs takes place in everyday life, these needs get cultural and symbolic form during the process.
The German philosopher Edmund Husserl designated certain phenomenological reality as the concept of «the world of everyday life» (or «life-world»), this reality is the individual experience of the subject. Taking this direction, the Austrian philosopher and sociologist A.Schütz differentiated all «life-worlds» to «finite range of values» (religion, sleep, play, scientific theorizing, artistic creation, the world of mental illness, etc.), that is symbolic and emblematic spheres of language constructs, the transition from which requires a certain jump of sense. The «architect» of social phenomenology identified six constituent elements of everyday life, proclaimed as «supreme reality»:
- employment-oriented activities for the outside world;
- specific certainty of the existence and validity of the perception of the outside world;
- active and intense attitude to life;
- perception of time through the prism of labor rhythms;
- certainty of personal identity;
- a special form of sociality as the world of social action and
However, Schutz’s everyday life is not considered in the historical dynamics. Thus, prominent Russian sociologist of culture L.G.Ionon, is not convinced that the world of everyday life is always seen as the only unique and original world. In the initial stages of human history, the world of everyday life was regarded as one of the possible worlds, and now we can talk about the reality of the afterlife in the world view of the modern believer. Intense attitude towards life was not always clearly manifested. Similarly, different in different eras, time was experienced differently, and only in the Christian era it acquired a linear direction.. At the same time, a special rhythm of life develops, which is distinct from nature, –a subjective or personal rhythm given by the church. This new rhythm «crosses» with natural, and a standard time emerges at this intersection — the time of labor and spiritual rhythms of everyday life. For Schutz, the person is engaged completely in everyday life. However, personal involvement of the traditional era’s people in their actions was greater than in the modern era of alienated everyday life. Moreover, Ionin believes that everyday life did not exist during the initial era history, because it is — the product of a long historical development. We can only speak about diffuse forms of everyday life, a kind of «social broadcast», which «has» social structures: any kind of intimacy, mystical experience, the death of the body, love connection, etc. [10].
In spite of the critique, Shutz’s interpretation, which was further developed in the writings of American social theorist and sociologist of religion Peter Berger, entered into the arsenal of so -called «new ethnography», focusing on the reconstruction of the ethnic history of the autochthons, consisting of a range of perceptions of everyday life. In the works of the American sociologist G.Garfinkel everyday life was also understood as the process of interpreting everyday relationships by the participants in this relationship. Everyday life can be defined as normal daily existence with all that surrounds the person: his life, the environment, cultural background and language vocabulary. But this self-evidence of everyday life makes it especially elusive. «Everyday» is what happens «every day», whereby there is no surprise. It is found in the form of routines, habits and many familiar phenomena.
Thus, the real life of the majority of Soviet people was formed of the barrack-like communal housing, endless queuing, exchanging coupons for goods, getting coupons, etc. Everyday situations are that occur frequently in such similar forms that there is no longer perception to be unique, which they have partly. The most important property of everyday life is that it is constantly becoming and does not tolerate pauses. As a rule, it is not interrupted completely even by unusual events, it only insists on its routine-type accounting. And there is one more important fact. As soon as we focus on a particular area of everyday life, we find some subtle differences. This applies to particular kinds of everyday activities that require some skills: cooking and gardening, hunting and fishing, collecting and preference, repairs of apartment, etc.
The research of everyday life allows us to see long periods of history and, simultaneously, to understand the «little things» of life. The study of everyday life provides an ability to understand cultural mentality that has been maintained over long historical periods, to understand how the theory is implemented in practice, what the ethics of everyday behavior is, which consists of small but crucial individual decisions and choices. Everyday life allows comprehend not only the rules and restrictions of the society, but also the ways of evasion and deviation from them.