Assignment paper no 8
Name :Gediya Disha Vijaybhai
Class :sem 2
Paper no: 8
Subject: what does everyday life mean?
Roll no:9
Email :dishagediya11@gmail.com
Submitted to: Department of English Maharaja krishna kumar sinhji Bhavnagar university
Words :2,361
to evaluate my assignment click here
Everyday life
Cultural study
What is cultural study?
Cultural study is hard to define. cultural study is intended in the process by which power relations between and within group of human beings organize cultural artefact and their meaning.
Culture mean it is the mode of generating meaning and ideas .this mode is negotiation over which meaning are valid. Meaning are governed by power relations.
Cultural study looks at mass , popular culture and everyday life.
Everyday life
Everyday life mean our routine life. What we are doing during our day to day life mean everyday life. Our lifestyle, our consumption and our interest. This show our relationship with people also important.
Cultural study takes everyday life very seriously. Researcher also do focus on metropolises . cultural study make focus on metropolitan culture. In this site it is multi layered and contested.
In our culture ,our society is constitute by the cultural artefact used by people and culture are themselves produced and consumed by society. In study of everyday life cultural artefacts becomes important and with social realm we can analysis it.
Cultural study analysing everyday life account for subjectivity. In the peoples responses experience is subjective.
Experience is best for express everyday life.
In everyday life it include our day to days experience, our food habit, our clothes, our lifestyle, daily activities, working etc. All these we can define only with experience. With our experience we also improve our daily life and bring some Changes.
We know that America's everyday life is not same as India’s life. In cities and countries think of different and do to different is basic structure of everyday life. We need to ask some kind of questions about what kind of food people need to eat or why? Event of food are different for different locations. Everyday life and cultural studies to be conscious of this.
Experience is main point of everyday life. How we experience daily music, traffic, social relationship, etc. Our sense of community or entertainment constitute our everyday culture.
In our life we expressed our feeling through language. Same as we expressed our everyday life with language. How we express what we experience, how we speak with others and how we tells our stories. We decode someone’s meaning when we listen someone. We meditate their experience through the language and cultural codes they and we share.
It is important to see how experience of everyday life become language and relationship if it is central to culture.
Our lifestyle and consumption of cultural artefacts in everyday life go together. Ideology emphasize leisure and pleasure over duties and work. A consumer ideology links pleasure to the consumption . consumerism is new form of identity.
Raymond Williams called cultural as lived culture where culture is produced by everyday life in which the clothes people use to wear, the food people use to eat and fashion people use to adopt. Culture is not some distinct realm produced elsewhere to be consumed by people. It is in everyday life that culture is made.
There are two method of analysis of the experience.
1) Ask people to record their experience of living with particular location. keep it with them As autobiographical narrative as source material and evidence for particular culture and theories about it. The subject is not merely embedded in context but actively produce that context.
2) Look primarily at how structure generate representations. See what is the effect of the discursive or addresser side of image rather than the interpretive or addressee side. The context of reorientation are given greater role in this approach.
The everyday life is a place where the individual becomes Central .The individual in contemporary globalized culture is an active agent .The individuals are very aware 9f their appropriation of global culture.
In this one is conflicting sources the global and local.
For example: should we buy Mobile of china company or Indian company.
We use letters only for something or use fax or e-mail also.
These are not a question about consumerism and leisure alone. These are question about cultural values in everyday life.
Everyday life generates multiple identity. In cultural study both people and place have multiple identity. People and place have become increasingly mobile , multicultural and hybridize.
Lifestyle identity is a mode of social interaction and bestow a degree if individualism. It is a matter of individual choice so a key components of its agency. The choice of lifestyle is a matter of self realization where an individual can insert her /his own test ,food, interest as a most important factor.
Today metropolitan everyday life across the world is simultaneously local and global.
Hybridity
Local +Global =Glocal
“There are so many thing in this world but why I want this”
This makes my everyday life different and also inspire me to think on it.
Same we use it in our routine life. We have many choice but why I am choosing this ? that is my culture and it shows my everyday life. It is my individual identity and depends on me that from which culture I have belong.
Hybrid of everyday life:
Our experience are now not restricted to one race.
Our identities are drawn from multiple.
Our value are themselves inspired by global culture.
Everyday lifestyle culture modify the use and meaning of global objects.
For example: cloth of Indowestern .
In India now we wears Indowestern clothes which is combination of Indian cloth and Western cloth.
We eat pizza in India but we apply Indian test in it because we don’t know how to make original pizza which has real test. We mix both the tastes to modify menu.
So everyday life now adds local meaning to global culture artefact. Thus the local is not necessarily Marginalized in the consumerist everyday life.
Thus global culture artefact is indigenized given a local flavour.
everyday life is absolutely different from that of the heroic artist, precisely because
everyone produces it, not the privileged artist. Robert and Lucy are significant because
they are typical and ordinary rather than special. And far from conferring freedom upon
these artists of everyday life.
overcome the distance, you reproduce it. Perhaps there's another way of thinking that
any institutional or pedagogical site, in constructing its own authority as a discourse, is
always being internally distanciated, is actually getting into a very chancy area where
it is always going to be erased in some sense. So perhaps, instead of looking at it in a
binary way, we should look the
way that every pedagogical site is always having to become the exorbitant site of its
own practice. Then we don't have a division between everyday life and the institution.
We begin to see a much more hybrid, in-between area of contestation developing. Then
questions of consensual culture and totalization don't always tend to be the horizons
towards which we work. We are able then to construct differences-the differences of
gender, of class, of race-in new, hybrid, unrecognizable, and perhaps even incommen-
surable figurations and prefigurations.
There is no "distancing," however, in the culture of everyday life. Both Bakhtin
and Bourdieu show how the culture of the people denies categorical boundaries between
art and life: popular art is part of the everyday, not distanced from it. The culture of
everyday life works only to the extent that it is imbricated into its immediate historical
and social setting. This materiality of popular culture is directly related to the economic teriality of the conditions of oppression. Under these conditions, social experience
and, therefore, culture is inescapably material: distantiation is an unattainable luxury.
The culture of everyday life is concrete, contextualized, and lived, just as deprivation is
concrete, contextualized, and lived. It is, therefore, a particularly difficult object of
academic investigation. Popular creativity is concretely contextual. It exists not as an abstract ability as the
bourgeois habitus conceives of artistic creativity: it is a creativity of practice, a bricolage.
It is a creativity which both produces objects such as quilts, diaries, or furniture ar-
rangements but which is equally if not more productive in the practices of daily life, in
the ways of dwelling, of walking, of making do. Objects are comparatively easy for the
investigator to describe and transcribe from one habitus to another, but the specificities
of their context and the practiced ways of living are much more resistant; they constitute
a culture which is best experienced from the inside and difficult to study from without.
The setting-arena relationship also relates to the difference between place and space
as theorized by de Certeau (1984). For him place is an ordered structure provided by
the dominant order through which its power to organize and control is exerted. It is
often physical. So cities are places built to organize and control the lives and movements
oftheir "city subjects" in the interests ofthe dominant. So, too, supermarkets, apartment
blocks, and universities are places. But within and against them, the various formations
of the people construct their spaces by the practices of living. So renters make the
apartment, the place of the landlord, into their space by the practices of living; the
textures of objects, relationships, and behaviors with which they occupy and possess it
for the period of their renting. Space is practiced place, and space is produced by the
creativity of the people using the resources of the other. De Certeau stresses the political
conflict involved, the confrontation of opposing social interests that is central to the
construction of space out of place. Lave focuses more on the functional creativity of the
activities involved in constructing a setting out of an arena. But her argument shows
that a setting is a material and cognitive space where the inhabitant or shopper is in
control, is able to cope successfully. The culture of everyday life is a culture of concrete practices which embody and
perform differences. These embodied differences are a site of struggle between the
measured individuations that constitute social discipline, and the popularity-produced
differences that fill and extend the spaces and power of the people.
The body enters into immediate, performed relationship with the different settings
or spaces it inhabits. The shopper who picks up the apples as she calculates the rela
tionship between the number of her kids, the days till the next shopping trip, and the
room in her refrigerator is not performing an abstract calculation that any body could
but is living a concrete relationship specific to her and thus different from every body
else's. So, too, the memorabilia that fill Lucy and Robert's apartment are not commodities
that any body could have bought; they are embodiments of unique, personal histories
that are different from every body else's, and they are part of the texture of everyday
culture only because they carry this difference, because they bring the absent but unique
past into the concreteness of the present where it is apprehensible by the senses of the
body. Television is used to increase, enrich and further densify the texture. It is typically
left on all the time, adding color, sound and action to apartment life: it is used to frame
and cause conversations, to fill gaps and silences. It can provide both a means of entering
and intensifying this dense everyday culture and a way of escaping it, for it is also used
to dilute "the concentration of crowded families, whose members can tune into
Television not only enriches and enters the interwoven texture of everyday life, it
re-presents it, too. Programs like Dallas, with its "vivid historically interwoven con-
creteness" offered renters "the same kind of texture that is so valued on the street."
The women in the apartments lived in and with Dallas over a number of years, growing
to know each character in "painstaking detail." Williams concludes: "As renters texture
an already dense domestic situation by weaving in more density, shows like these favorites
are appropriate vehicles"
Studies such as Leal's and Williams's show how the material, densely lived culture
of everyday life is a contradictory mixture of creativity and constraint. This is a way of
embodying and living the contradictory relations between the dominant social order
and the variety of subaltern formations within it. Williams comments somewhat sar-
donically that "A passion for texture is not always rewarded in American society, and
more middle-class strategies for urban living aim at breadth instead" (1988, p. 48). It
is a comment that I wish to extend to cover academic theory as part of middle-class
strategies for living.
The social order constrains and oppresses the people, but at the same time offers
them resources to fight against those constraints. The constraints are, in the first instance,
material, economic ones which determine in an oppressive, disempowering way, the
limits of the social experience of the poor. Oppression is always economic. Yet the
everyday culture of the oppressed takes the signs of that which oppresses them and uses
them for its own purposes. The signs of money are taken out of the economic system
of the dominant and inserted into the culture of the subaltern and their social force is
thus complicated. The plastic flowers are for Leal's newly suburbanized peasants, deeply
contradictory. They have a mystique because of the "mystery" of their production (unlike
natural flowers)-they are fetishes, syntheses of symbolic meanings, of modernity: but
they are also commodity fetishes. They require money, another fetish, and transform
that money into an object of cultural display.
Conclusion:
Thus we use everyday life in cultural study. we cannot say that it is dominated or taken over by global. Everyday life is firecely contested where the meaning of global culture artefact are re invented ,re inscribes by native culture.
Global products are actively transformed and given new meaning by the local audience. The consumer has a degree of power to choose the product and re inscribes it’s Meaning.
So everyday life in cultural study paly vital role . Without it we can not understand cultural study properly.
Class :sem 2
Paper no: 8
Subject: what does everyday life mean?
Roll no:9
Email :dishagediya11@gmail.com
Submitted to: Department of English Maharaja krishna kumar sinhji Bhavnagar university
Words :2,361
to evaluate my assignment click here
Everyday life
Cultural study
What is cultural study?
Cultural study is hard to define. cultural study is intended in the process by which power relations between and within group of human beings organize cultural artefact and their meaning.
Culture mean it is the mode of generating meaning and ideas .this mode is negotiation over which meaning are valid. Meaning are governed by power relations.
Cultural study looks at mass , popular culture and everyday life.
Everyday life
Everyday life mean our routine life. What we are doing during our day to day life mean everyday life. Our lifestyle, our consumption and our interest. This show our relationship with people also important.
Cultural study takes everyday life very seriously. Researcher also do focus on metropolises . cultural study make focus on metropolitan culture. In this site it is multi layered and contested.
In our culture ,our society is constitute by the cultural artefact used by people and culture are themselves produced and consumed by society. In study of everyday life cultural artefacts becomes important and with social realm we can analysis it.
Cultural study analysing everyday life account for subjectivity. In the peoples responses experience is subjective.
Experience is best for express everyday life.
In everyday life it include our day to days experience, our food habit, our clothes, our lifestyle, daily activities, working etc. All these we can define only with experience. With our experience we also improve our daily life and bring some Changes.
We know that America's everyday life is not same as India’s life. In cities and countries think of different and do to different is basic structure of everyday life. We need to ask some kind of questions about what kind of food people need to eat or why? Event of food are different for different locations. Everyday life and cultural studies to be conscious of this.
Experience is main point of everyday life. How we experience daily music, traffic, social relationship, etc. Our sense of community or entertainment constitute our everyday culture.
In our life we expressed our feeling through language. Same as we expressed our everyday life with language. How we express what we experience, how we speak with others and how we tells our stories. We decode someone’s meaning when we listen someone. We meditate their experience through the language and cultural codes they and we share.
It is important to see how experience of everyday life become language and relationship if it is central to culture.
Our lifestyle and consumption of cultural artefacts in everyday life go together. Ideology emphasize leisure and pleasure over duties and work. A consumer ideology links pleasure to the consumption . consumerism is new form of identity.
Raymond Williams called cultural as lived culture where culture is produced by everyday life in which the clothes people use to wear, the food people use to eat and fashion people use to adopt. Culture is not some distinct realm produced elsewhere to be consumed by people. It is in everyday life that culture is made.
There are two method of analysis of the experience.
1) Ask people to record their experience of living with particular location. keep it with them As autobiographical narrative as source material and evidence for particular culture and theories about it. The subject is not merely embedded in context but actively produce that context.
2) Look primarily at how structure generate representations. See what is the effect of the discursive or addresser side of image rather than the interpretive or addressee side. The context of reorientation are given greater role in this approach.
The everyday life is a place where the individual becomes Central .The individual in contemporary globalized culture is an active agent .The individuals are very aware 9f their appropriation of global culture.
In this one is conflicting sources the global and local.
For example: should we buy Mobile of china company or Indian company.
We use letters only for something or use fax or e-mail also.
These are not a question about consumerism and leisure alone. These are question about cultural values in everyday life.
Everyday life generates multiple identity. In cultural study both people and place have multiple identity. People and place have become increasingly mobile , multicultural and hybridize.
Lifestyle identity is a mode of social interaction and bestow a degree if individualism. It is a matter of individual choice so a key components of its agency. The choice of lifestyle is a matter of self realization where an individual can insert her /his own test ,food, interest as a most important factor.
Today metropolitan everyday life across the world is simultaneously local and global.
Hybridity
Local +Global =Glocal
“There are so many thing in this world but why I want this”
This makes my everyday life different and also inspire me to think on it.
Same we use it in our routine life. We have many choice but why I am choosing this ? that is my culture and it shows my everyday life. It is my individual identity and depends on me that from which culture I have belong.
Hybrid of everyday life:
Our experience are now not restricted to one race.
Our identities are drawn from multiple.
Our value are themselves inspired by global culture.
Everyday lifestyle culture modify the use and meaning of global objects.
For example: cloth of Indowestern .
In India now we wears Indowestern clothes which is combination of Indian cloth and Western cloth.
We eat pizza in India but we apply Indian test in it because we don’t know how to make original pizza which has real test. We mix both the tastes to modify menu.
So everyday life now adds local meaning to global culture artefact. Thus the local is not necessarily Marginalized in the consumerist everyday life.
Thus global culture artefact is indigenized given a local flavour.
everyday life is absolutely different from that of the heroic artist, precisely because
everyone produces it, not the privileged artist. Robert and Lucy are significant because
they are typical and ordinary rather than special. And far from conferring freedom upon
these artists of everyday life.
overcome the distance, you reproduce it. Perhaps there's another way of thinking that
any institutional or pedagogical site, in constructing its own authority as a discourse, is
always being internally distanciated, is actually getting into a very chancy area where
it is always going to be erased in some sense. So perhaps, instead of looking at it in a
binary way, we should look the
way that every pedagogical site is always having to become the exorbitant site of its
own practice. Then we don't have a division between everyday life and the institution.
We begin to see a much more hybrid, in-between area of contestation developing. Then
questions of consensual culture and totalization don't always tend to be the horizons
towards which we work. We are able then to construct differences-the differences of
gender, of class, of race-in new, hybrid, unrecognizable, and perhaps even incommen-
surable figurations and prefigurations.
There is no "distancing," however, in the culture of everyday life. Both Bakhtin
and Bourdieu show how the culture of the people denies categorical boundaries between
art and life: popular art is part of the everyday, not distanced from it. The culture of
everyday life works only to the extent that it is imbricated into its immediate historical
and social setting. This materiality of popular culture is directly related to the economic teriality of the conditions of oppression. Under these conditions, social experience
and, therefore, culture is inescapably material: distantiation is an unattainable luxury.
The culture of everyday life is concrete, contextualized, and lived, just as deprivation is
concrete, contextualized, and lived. It is, therefore, a particularly difficult object of
academic investigation. Popular creativity is concretely contextual. It exists not as an abstract ability as the
bourgeois habitus conceives of artistic creativity: it is a creativity of practice, a bricolage.
It is a creativity which both produces objects such as quilts, diaries, or furniture ar-
rangements but which is equally if not more productive in the practices of daily life, in
the ways of dwelling, of walking, of making do. Objects are comparatively easy for the
investigator to describe and transcribe from one habitus to another, but the specificities
of their context and the practiced ways of living are much more resistant; they constitute
a culture which is best experienced from the inside and difficult to study from without.
The setting-arena relationship also relates to the difference between place and space
as theorized by de Certeau (1984). For him place is an ordered structure provided by
the dominant order through which its power to organize and control is exerted. It is
often physical. So cities are places built to organize and control the lives and movements
oftheir "city subjects" in the interests ofthe dominant. So, too, supermarkets, apartment
blocks, and universities are places. But within and against them, the various formations
of the people construct their spaces by the practices of living. So renters make the
apartment, the place of the landlord, into their space by the practices of living; the
textures of objects, relationships, and behaviors with which they occupy and possess it
for the period of their renting. Space is practiced place, and space is produced by the
creativity of the people using the resources of the other. De Certeau stresses the political
conflict involved, the confrontation of opposing social interests that is central to the
construction of space out of place. Lave focuses more on the functional creativity of the
activities involved in constructing a setting out of an arena. But her argument shows
that a setting is a material and cognitive space where the inhabitant or shopper is in
control, is able to cope successfully. The culture of everyday life is a culture of concrete practices which embody and
perform differences. These embodied differences are a site of struggle between the
measured individuations that constitute social discipline, and the popularity-produced
differences that fill and extend the spaces and power of the people.
The body enters into immediate, performed relationship with the different settings
or spaces it inhabits. The shopper who picks up the apples as she calculates the rela
tionship between the number of her kids, the days till the next shopping trip, and the
room in her refrigerator is not performing an abstract calculation that any body could
but is living a concrete relationship specific to her and thus different from every body
else's. So, too, the memorabilia that fill Lucy and Robert's apartment are not commodities
that any body could have bought; they are embodiments of unique, personal histories
that are different from every body else's, and they are part of the texture of everyday
culture only because they carry this difference, because they bring the absent but unique
past into the concreteness of the present where it is apprehensible by the senses of the
body. Television is used to increase, enrich and further densify the texture. It is typically
left on all the time, adding color, sound and action to apartment life: it is used to frame
and cause conversations, to fill gaps and silences. It can provide both a means of entering
and intensifying this dense everyday culture and a way of escaping it, for it is also used
to dilute "the concentration of crowded families, whose members can tune into
Television not only enriches and enters the interwoven texture of everyday life, it
re-presents it, too. Programs like Dallas, with its "vivid historically interwoven con-
creteness" offered renters "the same kind of texture that is so valued on the street."
The women in the apartments lived in and with Dallas over a number of years, growing
to know each character in "painstaking detail." Williams concludes: "As renters texture
an already dense domestic situation by weaving in more density, shows like these favorites
are appropriate vehicles"
Studies such as Leal's and Williams's show how the material, densely lived culture
of everyday life is a contradictory mixture of creativity and constraint. This is a way of
embodying and living the contradictory relations between the dominant social order
and the variety of subaltern formations within it. Williams comments somewhat sar-
donically that "A passion for texture is not always rewarded in American society, and
more middle-class strategies for urban living aim at breadth instead" (1988, p. 48). It
is a comment that I wish to extend to cover academic theory as part of middle-class
strategies for living.
The social order constrains and oppresses the people, but at the same time offers
them resources to fight against those constraints. The constraints are, in the first instance,
material, economic ones which determine in an oppressive, disempowering way, the
limits of the social experience of the poor. Oppression is always economic. Yet the
everyday culture of the oppressed takes the signs of that which oppresses them and uses
them for its own purposes. The signs of money are taken out of the economic system
of the dominant and inserted into the culture of the subaltern and their social force is
thus complicated. The plastic flowers are for Leal's newly suburbanized peasants, deeply
contradictory. They have a mystique because of the "mystery" of their production (unlike
natural flowers)-they are fetishes, syntheses of symbolic meanings, of modernity: but
they are also commodity fetishes. They require money, another fetish, and transform
that money into an object of cultural display.
Conclusion:
Thus we use everyday life in cultural study. we cannot say that it is dominated or taken over by global. Everyday life is firecely contested where the meaning of global culture artefact are re invented ,re inscribes by native culture.
Global products are actively transformed and given new meaning by the local audience. The consumer has a degree of power to choose the product and re inscribes it’s Meaning.
So everyday life in cultural study paly vital role . Without it we can not understand cultural study properly.
Comments
Post a Comment