An everyday geography: spatial diversity of the everyday life
Abstract
Formulation of the problem. Development of new geographical research direction in post-Soviet space is caused by the necessity to understand spatial diversity of everyday life and to solve related issues at the local level. In many cases the diversity of everyday life affects not only the living conditions, but also shapes behavior, practices and habits of the local population. If in humanitarian sciences everyday life is actively studied, in geography this topic is still overlooked. Previous spatial studies of everyday life show that research results are actually relevant and lead to the emergence of a new research direction – an everyday geography.
The purpose of the article: based on the analysis of the world discourse and the results of own studies of the spatial diversity of everyday life, to reveal possible ways of formation and development of a new geographical research direction in post-Soviet space – everyday geography. There is no universally accepted methodology for the study of geography of everyday life, but experience shows that both traditional geographical and specific methods from social sciences, representational and non-representational methods can be successfully applied.
Results. The world geography gives much more attention to the studies of the spatial diversity of everyday life in comparison with post-Soviet countries, and as a result emotional, affective, animated geographies are developed, as well as geography of fear, geography of trauma, etc. Everyday life refers to ordinary, mundane activities, experiences, behavior, and interaction with the environment. Everydayness is considered as a temporal (daily, monthly, annual) cross-section of living (personal, communal, societal) environment within a particular territory. Everyday life is practiced as a socio-cultural world, where particular person exists just like other people, interacting with them and non-human objects, influencing them, changing them, and simultaneously is affected and changed by them. Everydayness shapes daily life – the constant processes of ‘everydaying’ human activities in the form of communication with the environment, learning the traditions and consolidation of behavior rules, ‘mastering’ a lifestyle, tools to achieve goals, etc. However, everyday life is constantly disturbed by innovations, appearance of the unusual, deviation from stereotypes, traditions and the formation of new rules. Unusual for a certain period participates in the process of ‘everydaying’ and then becoming everyday, mundane, taken-for-granted, extends the scope of everyday life.
The everyday geography explores particular reactions of people in particular spatial conditions. Everydayness is everywhere, and researchers study everyday spaces, everyday practices, everyday mobilities, everyday conflicts and resistance, even everyday geopolitics and, more broadly, everyday life and everyday geographies. However, everyday life is not perceived as a unity. It consists of many typical but not necessarily interrelated activities, each of them is taken for granted by participants (work, family life, leisure, etc.), but spatially diverse.
The studies of the spatial diversity of everyday life focuses mainly on the investigation of everyday spaces within which everyday life occurs, everyday practices – the routine activities we do every day without thinking about it, and a number of everyday events. Geographers can explore the diversity of everyday life in several ways: using spatial-temporal, art-geographical, everyday-tourist approaches. So far, individual studies of the spatial diversity of everyday life will inevitably transformed into the broad band of post-Soviet geography – the everyday geography.
Scientific novelty and practical significance. Focusing of geographers on the everyday life gives a deeper understanding of the tendencies and consequences of various social and cultural processes, the state of the contemporary destabilized environment. The paper deals with the discourse on spatial diversity of everyday life and conceptualization of emotional, affective, non-representational, animative, everyday and other geographies. Particular attention is paid to the key concepts of the everyday life geographies – everyday spaces, practices and events. Prospective directions of the further studies of the everydayness (including spatial-temporal, art-geographical, everyday-tourist approaches), as well as the practical importance of everyday life spatial diversity researches for territorial management are discussed.
Downloads
References
Horton, J., & Kraftl, P. (2014). Cultural Geographies. An Introduction. New York: Routledge, 325.
Holloway, L., & Hubbard, P. (2001). People and Place: The extraordinary geographies of everyday life. Harlow: Pearson.
Eyles, J. (1989). The geography of everyday life. In D. Gregory & R. Walford (eds). Horizons in Human Geography. London: Macmillan, 102–117.
Volovych, V.I. (ed) (1998). Sociology: Brief encyclopedic dictionary. Kyiv, 327. [In Ukrainian].
Rigg, J. (2007). An Everyday Geography of the Global South. New York: Routledge, 231.
Augé, M. (1995). Non-Places: Introduction to an anthropology of super-modernity. London: Verso.
Anderson, B. (2004). Time-stilled, space-slowed: how boredom matters. Geoforum, 35 (6), 739–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.02.005
Rose, G. (1993). Feminism and Geography: The limits of geographical knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Valentine, G. (1989). The geography of women’s fear. Area, 21 (4), 385–390.
Valentine, G. (2001). Social Geographies: Space and society. Harlow: Pearson.
MacKay, H. (1997). Introduction. In H. MacKay (ed), Consumption and Everyday Life. London: SAGE Publications, 1–12.
Chaney, D. (2002). Cultural Change and Everyday Life. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Provotar, N., Melnychuk, A., Hnatiuk, O., & Denysenko, O. (2019). Changing everyday practices: research of local trends methodic. Ekonomichna ta Sotsialna Geografia, 81, 34–41. [In Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-7154/2019.81.34-41
Mezentsev, K., Provotar, N., Gnatiuk, O., Melnychuk, A., & Denysenko, O. (2019). Ambiguous suburban spaces: trends and peculiarities of everyday practices change. Ekonomichna ta Sotsialna Geografiya, 82, 4-19. [In Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-7154/2019.82.4-19
Attfield, J. (2000). Wild Things: The material culture of everyday life. Oxford: Berg.
Marcus, G. (1989). Lipstick Traces: A secret history of the twentieth century. London: Secker & Warburg.
Shablii, O.I. (2001). Human Geography: theory, history, Ukrainian studies. Lviv: Ivan Franko Lviv National University [In Ukrainian].
Leleko, V.D. (2002). Space of everydayness in European culture. St-Petersburg, 168. [In Russian]
Bondi, L., Davidson, J., & Smith, M. (2005). Introduction: geography’s ‘emotional turn’. In J. Davidson, L. Bondi, & M. Smith (eds), Emotional Geographies. Ashgate Publishing, 1–16.
Parr, H. (2005). Emotional geographies. In P. Cloke, P. Crang, & M. Goodwin. (eds), Introducing Human Geographies. London: Arnold, 472–485.
Anderson, K., & Smith, S. (2001). Editorial: emotional geographies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26 (1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5661.00002
Pred, A. (2000). Intersections. In S Pile, N. Thrift (eds), City A–Z. London: Routledge, 117–118.
Isenberg, W. (1989). Animative Geographie. Spontane Erforschung lokaler und regionaler Alltagswelten. Geographie heute, 67, 47–48.
Knabe, G.S. (1989). Everydayness dialectics. Philosophy Issues, 5, 26–46 [In Russian].
Koliastruk, O. (2016). History of the everydayness as an object of historical study: historiographical and methodological aspects. Kharkiv, 164 p. [In Ukrainian].
Seigworth, G. (2000). Banality for cultural studies. Cultural Studies, 14 (2), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/095023800334878
Thrift, N., & Dewsbury, J. (2000). Dead geographies – and how to make them live. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18 (4), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1068/d1804ed
Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. New York: Routledge, 337 p.
Fuller, D., Askins, K., Mowl, G., Jeffries, M., & Lambert, D. (2008). Mywalks: fieldwork and living geographies, Teaching Geography, 33 (2): 80–84.
Denysyk, G.I. (2001). Forest Field of UkraineVinnytsia: Thesis, 284. [In Ukrainian].
Denysyk, G.I. (2014). Anthropogenic Landscape Studies Part I. Global Anthropogenic Landscape Studies. Vinnytsia: Vinnytsia state printing house, 334. [In Ukrainian].
Kraftl, P. (2009). Living in an artwork: the extraordinary geographies of the Hundertwasser-Haus, Vienna. Cultural geographies, 16 (1): 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474008097982
