The following ad supports maintaining our C.E.E.O.L. service 

 

 

Everydayness: “in search of lost time”

«Everydayness: “in search of lost time”»

by Ina Nalivaiko

Source:Philosophy. Sociology (Filosofija. Sociologija), issue: 1­2 / 2006, pages: 43­47, on www.ceeol.com.

Everydayness: “in search of lost time” 43

The increasing interest to the problem of everyday being in modern philoso-phy is predetermined by the crisis of the classical model of subjectivity.Everydayness is one of the phenomena regarded to be a new background forsubjectivity under the crisis of identity. The comprehension of everydaynessis deeply connected with rethinking of time as the self-name of subjectivity.In this matter, analysis of the phenomenon of everydayness within the dia-logue of different cultural traditions is rather urgent. It shows the connectionof understanding everydayness with different types of power relations anddifferent modes of subjectivation.

Key words: everydayness, time, power, subjectivity, form, border, place inbeing

Ina Nalivaiko

Belarusian State University,Philosophy of Culture Department,e-mail: niminna@mail.ru

Everydayness: “in search of lost time”

FILOSOFIJA. SOCIOLOGIJA. 2006. Nr. 1. P. 43–47© Lietuvos mokslų akademija, 2006© Lietuvos mokslų akademijos leidykla, 2006

INTRODUCTION

Modernity is evidently marked by a great philosophicalinterest to the phenomenon of everyday being. The pro-blems of everyday consciousness and everyday langu-age, stereotypes of daily behaviour and the structuresof everyday life are among the most urgent themes ofpostclassical philosophy. One way or another they arediscussed in phenomenology, linguistic analysis, funda-mental ontology of M. Heidegger, etc. From my view-point, the interest to the phenomenon of everyday be-ing takes its roots in modern cultural transformations,which in turn cause the crisis of human identity.

Attempts to find the name for the modern culturalsituation, varying in a range from “postclassics” up to“postmodern”, evidently show its transitive and unstab-le character expressed in breaking the borders amongdifferent cultural phenomena. The abovesaid preciselydescribes the present condition of daily life. On theone hand, it loses its subordinated character and evermore obviously penetrates the public forms of culture,and on the other hand, daily occurrence stores in itselfcertain stereotypes of behaviour and corporal practiceswhich designate and support ethnic and cultural identi-ty. In this plan, the splash of interest to the problem ofdaily occurrence in the context of modern philosophyis rather symptomatic. One can note that the beginningof discussing this problem chronologically coincides withthe crisis of the New-European type of subjectivity andwith the aspiration to recomprehend its basis. In theclassical paradigm, the subjectivity was understood as adefinite rationally grasping essence without any empiriclayers. Everyday life was understood as a sphere whichdispersed the self and prevented it from obtaining theessence. That’s why the theme of everyday being wasrather marginal for philosophical tradition, since the lat-

ter directed its attention toward the cognition and sub-stantiation of this essence.

It is rather interesting that even the name of thesphere of daily life – “everydayness” – underlined itsnon-authentic character. The name “everydayness” showsus not only the ordinary time but first of all a specificordinary way of being. Everydayness is the self-nameof the so-called profane time in its counterpoise to eter-nity. But this is the reason why it can be understood asthe name of time itself, because the time is given to usonly “now”, only in the experience of “daily living”.We have here a kind of a paradox: time gives the titleto a definite mode of being, unmasking a deep connec-tion between being and time themselves, meanwhile clas-sical philosophy since Parmenide stated a contradictionbetween them.

However, due to the newest cultural transformationsthe very possibility of existence of the self as some-thing unique and original becomes quite problematic.The so-called postclassical thinking, caused by the cri-sis of identity, tries to comprehend the phenomena ig-nored by classical tradition as a new basis of the self.Everydayness is obviously one of them. Moreover, theproblem of everydayness may be discussed in themainstream of the problem of time. It is postclassicalthinking that draws an evident parallel between the ti-me and the self.

At the same time modern philosophy is marked bya great diversity of the formulation and discussion ofthis theme, the backgrounds of different concepts beingnot quite clear and evident. Moreover, they cannot evenfind any terminological unity in solving this problem.For example, the German tradition worked out the con-cept “Alltaeglichkeit” as a unite name for all phenome-na concerning everyday life, while the traditional En-glish language uses combinations of words with the

Ina Nalivaiko44

adjectives “everyday” or “daily”. “Everydayness” is aneologism introduced by the translators of Martin Hei-degger’s works. That’s why one of the aims of thisarticle is to find a link uniting all versions of interpre-tation of everydayness in postclassical philosophy. Inthis matter, analysis of the phenomenon of everyday-ness within the dialogue of different cultural traditionsis rather urgent. A comparison of West European andRussian traditions is one of the most fruitful ways, be-cause along with common cultural roots they have theirown specific features demonstrating us something like“non-similarity of similar”. This permits to regard theontological aspects of the problem of everydayness ascultural.

THE PLACE OF EVERYDAYNESS INWESTERN CULTURE

The unity and identity of culture are deeply connectedwith the specificity of subjectivity determined by a de-finite society. The problem of subjectivity types andthe modes of subjectivation will be the basis of thiswork.

According to Bachtin’s statement, the specificity ofany phenomenon is defined by the border. The borderof everyday is non-everyday. What does it mean? Be-sides the most common oppositions “usual–unusual”,“everyday–non-everyday” where colorless existence isopposed to everydayness events is described by theopposition “private–public”. I presuppose that the lat-ter is decisive in the Western understanding of every-dayness. But what does this opposition establish? Toanswer this question, one must understand what typeof subjectivity is forming within Western culture andwhat is the way of its forming. It is well known fromNietzsche’s works that the key to understanding sub-jectivity is will. But will in turn is deeply connectedwith power. In the framework of this article, power isregarded to be ontological. (We may remind the rea-ders that J. Deleuze even calls it one of three “figuresof Being” – “power” Being”.) So the task is to rea-lize what mode of power relations lays in the basis ofthe Western type of subjectivity. This task pushes usto refer to the origin of Western culture – to the cul-ture of Ancient Greece.

Regarding the origin of Western culture, one canstate that the immanent character of power in the fra-mework of ancient democracy defines the subjectivitywith the help of self-governing experience. J. Deleuzein his book „Foucault“ tries to explain it with the helpof the concept of the “fold”. Subjectivity is only thefold of power; one must be able to govern himself togovern another. The Greeks created the subject but on-ly as a product of subjectivation.

The agonistic relations among the citizens of theGreek State bore the subjectivity as a point of resistan-ce to power by cultivating power inside the self. Sosubjectivity is a fold of power, but the contours of this

fold become the border and the form of the subjectivi-ty. The Western subjectivity from the very beginningwas forming as a result of realizing the power and asthe form and the border, differentiation and distance.The person in the framework of this culture aspires notonly to be but also to be somebody, to realize himself.The world of the European person is the world of ac-tion, realization. One can say that the Western personis a person of vertical line, person of time. The Westis moved by the cult of form and the pathos of distan-ce. But a form is a result of forming, a border is aresult of bordering. Mutual dependence of the productsof this culture upon each other inevitably leads to theirunification. A form transforms into a norm, standardand stereotype.

The most vivid manifestation of this feature of theWestern culture is found in the practice of communitybuilding. The symbol of this community is agora as apolitical, sacral and commercial center of the state. Firstof all agora is a square, i.e. it is an open, public, com-mon space. The unity also takes its origin in the publiccharacter of power. This type of unity presupposes thenorm and the distance as its necessary conditions. Butthe distance between the self and the other transformsinto the distance inside the self, into the distance bet-ween open and hidden, public and private. Everythingconcealed from the light of public has a doubtful va-lue. That is why everydayness as the sphere of privatelife was understood as a non-authentic mode of humanbeing, because it dispersed the self as the point of re-sistance.

EVERYDAYNESS AS A PROBLEM OFPOSTCLASSICAL PHILOSOPHY

But sooner or later the subjectivity formed outside, fromthe side of power comes to its negation. Subjectivationtransforms into subjection. By the end of the 20th cen-tury these processes contributed to Foucault’s radicalthesis “to liberate from the self”, which leads to therecomprehension of the basis of subjectivity and as aresult – the reopening of the ontological status of eve-rydayness.

In the conditions of Western culture, “to free fromthe self” means first of all to unmask power, to freefrom its modulating influence. That’s why the discus-sion of the most urgent themes of modern philosophyis based on the comprehension of the problem of po-wer. Unmasking the power presupposes breaking theoppositions created by power as well as oppositionsinside power. The 20th century reminds us that besidespower as such, knowledge as its alter ego takes part informing the Western type of subjectivity. (Let us re-mind: antiquity creates the cult of the theory, theoreti-cal person; the main subject of New-European philo-sophy becomes the transcendental subject as the purepossibility of cognition). Knowledge is the other sideof power for the western world, knowledge always is

Everydayness: “in search of lost time” 45

a load with a powerful potential, it is the form of therealization of will, as any judgement is the act of will.Besides, knowledge codifies power relations in the sys-tems of laws and rules which in turn govern the self.Thus, we can state that knowledge also takes part inthe process of subjectivation and must be recomprehen-ded under modern conditions. New subjectivity demandsa new cognitive model. How is it possible? First of all,one must remember that knowledge has a dual nature,it includes visual and verbal components, seeing andspeaking. Antiquity states this difference in the opposi-tion of eidos and logos. Modern philosophy remembersthis opposition as an opportunity to overcome the clas-sical cognitive model and to broaden the limits of un-derstanding the subjectivity. The debate between the vi-sual and the verbal marks the movement of individua-tion. The status of the word increases with increasingthe individuation movement, reducing the subject’s pre-tensions to elevate the world of the visual. The leadinghistorical tendency in this dispute was moving the ac-cents towards the side of the verbal. The image trans-forms into the word as a ready form and stereotype. Ahuman being loses the ability of seeing–understanding,activism replaces contemplation.

Thus, recomprehension of knowledge in order to finda new subjectivity leads to recomprehension of the qu-estion: “What does it mean “to see” and “to speak”?”But seeing is possible only in the space of light, spe-aking is possible only in the space of language. Solight and language, the world of things and the worldof words, become the main problem centres of modernphilosophy. The majority of philosophical movementsstudying the phenomenon of everydayness can be clas-sified according to this criterion. The wide range ofconceptions which take their roots in Husserl’s pheno-menology (phenomenological sociology of A. Shutz,ethomethodology of H. Garfinkel, existential phenome-nology of M. Merleau-Ponty, for example), is directedto overcoming the prejudice of vision, to rememberingthe ontological character of the phenomenological. Itpushes them to appeal to the world of direct experien-ce, in a sense to the world of everydayness. Is themovement of the phenomenological wave the move-ment to “pure” vision? “Back to the things”, to theopacity of the world. But their appealing to the every-day sphere, to the sphere of direct experience bringsthem to the new forms of anonymity, i.e. again to atypical perception of the world.

Analogous tendencies can also be noticed in thosestudies of everydayness which are connected with theanalysis of language. The most representative amongthem are attempts of analytical philosophy to refer tothe studying of the language form of daily communica-tion, i.e. to refer to the so-called logic of commonsense. The result is the same: norm and stereotype asthe background of communication and subjectivity.

However, most interesting are undoubtedly the the-ories that involve in their studies of everydayness both

language and things, the visual and the verbal. Themost vivid and fruitful among them is the conceptionof Martin Heidegger who in his Being and Time makes“everydayness” one of the leading concepts of his fun-damental ontology. He regards everydayness as a sphe-re where Dasein precisely is. Heidegger rejects the clas-sical opposition, admits the ontological status of every-dayness and tries to find in it the basis of the self. Themode of understanding everyday being is explicated byHeidegger in the terms of “curiosity” and “chatter”.The chatter dips Dasein into anonymity deprived of theroots. It is very important that Heidegger underlinesthe necessity and a definite constitutive force of suchunderstanding, the force of chatter. Within it, from it,against it any authentic understanding, interpretation andcommunication can be accomplished. So the Germanthinker breaks the borders between everyday and unu-sual, describing everydayness as a necessary ontologi-cal basis of being of Dasein. Depriving of the roots isnot non-being of Dasein, just on the contrary, it is itseveryday and firmest reality.

The specific character of seeing in the space of eve-rydayness is described as curiosity. Curiosity is alsodeprived of the roots, it is homeless and doesn’t worryabout authentic understanding. It wants to see but notto understand the visual. Curiosity creates a permanentpossibility of dispersing. In this word the key to Hei-degger’s attitude to everydayness is hidden. Dispersingis something opposite to forming the self, it deprivessubjectivity of its own character; chatter and curiositygive Dasein the guarantee of supposedly authentical “li-ving life”.

This short digression in Heidegger’s conception al-lows us to conclude that the German thinker makes animportant step of the ontological comprehension of eve-rydayness, but he cannot miss the attitude to this sphe-re. The semantics of the words brings him to the roleof the judge of everydayness. Everydayness is not inopposition to public, it is the sphere of its living. Tosome extent Heidegger is a hostage of the Europeanmode of subjectivity, formed by public. The fear ofdispersing, losing the authenticity and identity demonst-rates his deep dependence on the classical model of thesubject.

Thus, the attention paid by Western philosophy ofthe 20th century to the sphere of everyday being isdetermined by the crisis of subjectivity and by the at-tempt to regard everydayness as the background of anew type of subjectivity. Nevertheless, Western philo-sophers, as a rule, still consider everydayness as ananonymous mode of sociality, irrespective of its positi-ve or negative evaluation.

EVERYDAYNESS IN THE CONTEXT OFRUSSIAN PHILOSOPHY

An opposite interpretation of the role of everyday beingcan be found within the space of Russian culture, in the

Ina Nalivaiko46

works of V. Rosanov. Rosanov’s philosophy of everyda-yness is determined by some fundamental priorities ofRussian culture, realizing the transcendental character ofpower. The type of subjectivity born by this culture ismarked with an absence of a finished form, the will torealization, “non-actualization”. It is not determined bythe self-governing experience, but by assimilation of thespace, by the place in being. The archetype of home isone of the main ones in the space of Russian culture.Thus, the Russian model of subjectivity is not the resultof power, it is formed by a place in being.

This specific trait of Russian culture is evident inthe model of sociality. The idea of unity, which go-verns Russian culture, realizes itself in the principle of“sobornost”. “Sobor” (cathedral) also realizes the ar-chetype of home, place, but it is a sacral place. So theunity is predefined and sanctified by a transcendent sac-ral authority. This unity is formed not due to equalityin power but to equality and responsibility in the faceof God. So it is free from the cult of the border. TheRussian mentality presupposes unity not as the resultof forming and bordering but as the experience of ga-thering fragmented parts of being in the space of place,home.

That’s why Rosanov’s philosophy designs the worldof everydayness, the world of one’s home, place as thenecessary condition for the human being. The existence“without the place in the world” is equal to non-being.Returning the forgotten ontological meaning of the Rus-sian word “быт” (daily life), Rosanov justifies every-dayness as a place in being, marked by the appropriatecharacter of human actions. The rehabilitation of thedaily and current postulates the meaningful and sacralcharacter of everyday being. While stating that eternalis given only through everyday, “now” and “here”, inthe fleeting events, trivialities, “the cobweb of dailylife”, the Russian philosopher realizes the religious-on-tological turning from the emptiness of the public tothe intimate and sacral space of home as a condition offorming the subjectivity. Making himself at home, thehuman being overcomes the distance between himselfand the being. The subjectivity is born as a result ofthe dialogue with Another, understood through the sym-pathetic reception of the originality of the being, a com-passionate meeting with another individuality and a non-discursive dialogue with God as the highest ontologicalreality. Rosanov’s everydayness doesn’t create isolationand distance but solitariness, which, on the one hand,presupposes the rights of the subject to have his ownworld and, on the other, breaks the circle of loneliness,which is overcome by the refusal of expansionistic,conscious-volitional efforts.

The dialogue with God is displayed through silence,weeping, prayer. The prayer lies in “the very essenceof the world”; it is the medium between the sacral andthe mundane. It is Rosanov’s “dance of prayer” wheresubjectivity without a complete form and willing ex-pansionism is born.

Thus, the analysis of the problem of everydaynessin the dialogue of Western and Russian cultures showsthat these types of subjectivity are both opposite andcomplementary. This problem has a long history, butour time sharpens it, because it breaks and rebuilds allold models. Probably the search of a new subjectivitywill be fruitful only in the case of overcoming theextremes of both models where the “vertical” of timemust be supplemented by the “horizontal” of space.

Received 9 February 2006

References

1. Brogan, W. 1990. “Heidegger and Aristotle: Dasein andthe Question of Practical Life”, in Crisis in ContinentalPhilosophy, ed. A. Dallery and C. Scott. N. Y.: SUNYPress, 137–146.

2. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Engle-wood Cliffs, N. Y.: Prentice-Hall.

3. Hampshire, S. 1978. Public and Private Morality. Camb-rige: Cambridge Univ. Press.

4. Schutz, A. 1966. “The Problem of Transcendental Inter-subjectivity in Husserl”, in Schutz A. Collected Papers,III. Hague: Nijhoff, 37–112.

5. Waldenfels, B. 1999. Merleau-Ponty. A Companion toContinental Philosophy, ed. S. Critchley and W. R. Schro-eder. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 281–292.

6. Аристотель. 1976. Метафизика. Сочинения в 4-х т.Пер. с древнегреч. Т. 1. Ред. В. Ф. Асмус. Москва:Мысль.

7. Вальденфельс, Б. 1991. „Повседневность какплавильный тигль рациональности“, Социо-логос.Пер. с англ., нем., франц. Сост., общ. ред. ипредисл. В. В. Винокурова.

8. Делез, Ж. 1997. Складка. Лейбниц и барокко. Общ.ред. и послесл. В. А. Подороги. Москва: Логос.

9. Делёз, Ж. 1997. Складчатость или Внутренние мысли(Субъективация). Пер. с англ., вступление,комментарии И. М. Наливайко. От Я к Другому.Сб. пер. по проблемам интерсубъективности,коммуникации, диалога. Минск: «Минск»,223–254.

10. Делёз, Ж. 1998. Фуко. Пер. с франц. Е. В. Семиной.Вступ. ст. И. П. Ильина. Москва: Изд-вогуманитарной литературы.

11. Мерло-Понти, М. 1999. Феноменология восприятия.Пер. с франц. Отв. ред. И. С. Вдовина. СПб.:Ювента, Наука.

12. Наливайко, И. М. 1998. „Повседневность: встреча сДругим и движение субъективации (В. Розанов)“.От Я к Другому: проблемы социальной онтологии впостклассической философии. Сб. докладов. Минск:Пропилеи, 139–144.

13. Розанов, В. В. 1990. Опавшие листья. Короб первый.Сочинения: в 2-х т. Москва: Правда, Т. 2. 277–419.

14. Розанов, В. В. 1990. Уединенное. Сочинения: в 2-х т.Москва: Правда, Т. 2. 195–274.

Everydayness: “in search of lost time” 47

15. Хайдеггер, М. 1997. Бытие и время. Пер. с нем.,комм. В. В. Бибихина. Москва: Ad Marginem.

Ina Nalivaiko

KASDIENYBĖ: „IEŠKANT PRARASTO LAIKO“

S a n t r a u k aPadidėjusį susidomėjimą kasdienio buvimo problema sąlygojaklasikinio subjektyvumo modelio krizė. Kasdienybė – vienas

fenomenų, iškilusių naujo subjektyvumo fone, veikiant tapatu-mo krizei. Kasdienybės refleksija esmiškai susijusi su laikokaip subjektyvumo moduso apmąstymu. Šia prasme kasdieny-bės fenomeno analizė, esant skirtingų kultūrinių tradicijų dia-logui, nepaprastai aktuali. Tai rodo kasdienybės supratimo są-sajas su įvairiais jėgos santykiais ir subjektyvacijos modusais.

Raktažodžiai: laikas, kasdienybė, jėga, subjektyvumas, for-ma, riba, būtis