Understanding Everyday Life - Assignment Example

Assignment on Everyday Life Name Institution Course Tutor Date QUESTION 1 Social practice theories have been used broaden the understanding of why individuals behave they way they do within their surroundings in day-to-day life. This activity can be used to explain social behaviour and social interaction people find themselves into within their everyday social environments. According to Bennett and Watson (2002) various social settings are associated with everyday, including the street, workplace, home, and even the pub. This activity falls in this context of social site explained by Bennett and Watson. The message manifested in the activity is that people can display own behavioural traits, in their everyday life while on streets. The activity also makes us understand that people often display divergent social characteristics and dynamics in everyday life. This could be due to various factors, such as gender, class, ethnicity, age, and power. Bennett and Watson (2002) assert that when we talk of everyday life we do not only refer to what is likely to happen in a single day, or on a daily basis, but we should often associate it with the connotation of ordinariness. In other worlds, everyday life is highly associated with day-to-day life experiences of ordinary people. This activity seems to confirm the sentiments by Bennett and Watson (2002), since the people involved appear to be ordinary, and not from powerful social classes. However, this does not mean that members of powerful social classes are not associated with everyday life as they encounter various aspects of everyday life. Another aspect of everyday life and which is also postulated by Bennett and Watson (2002) is that everyday life is not imbued with religious and magical beliefs. How people get along on everyday basis is what explains everyday life. Despite suspending everyday time to attend certain types of festive time, people would consider this to be part of everyday life. We can also argue that all people in the social sites share everyday life experiences. Although people may not verbally share their day-to-day encounters, such experiences may be clearly seen from their behavior. The activity proves it all. The people shown in the photo are sharing one thing in common; they are waiting for a bus. To each person, this is part of his or her everyday life and the activity brings them together. Therefore, it is true to state that members of particular social classes share the experiences of everyday life. Sometimes, such experiences may be unnoticed as observe Bennett and Watson (2002), but they are truly distinct to a group of people. QUESTION 2 Self-checkout counters provide customers opportunity to scan, pack, and pay for items on their own without support from an employee. This is also part of everyday life people go through. Self-checkout services are social routines and rituals that have sociological importance in the life of people. They provide an avenue through which people establish social relationships through daily routine, which involve shopping fresh food and other important daily products as shown in the activity (Bennett and Watson 2002). According to Bennett and Watson (2002) consumption practices play an important role in organizing everyday life among individuals. Self-checkout counters, as a facilitator of consumption practices enable people to relate one another in the process of trying to meet their day-to-day shopping activities. The daily cultural tastes and preferences of individuals not only organize, but also symbolize relationships that are distinct to a particular social class. This means that people who use self-check counters have something they share in common that makes their social relationships stronger. This is also related to the concept of cultural economy (Bennett and Watson 2002), where issues related to culture play contribute to the organization of various elements of economic life. Self-checkout service is a form of retailing that promotes a distinct lifestyle of customers within a particular market segment. In this sense, people attached to this ritual and space has developed distinct characteristics that bind them together as a social group. This ritual and space provides a new approach to understanding the existing relationship between ethnicity and everyday life. In stead of viewing people as belong to a particular ethnic group, by virtue of their different cultures, we are meant to view ethnicity in a more relational perspective. Ideally, self-checkout counters create some sort of identity among people in the way they relate to each other, and tend to be variable and fluid in different ways. The implication of this form of retailing in regard to everyday life is that the organization of everyday social life is bounded to certain locations (Bennett and Watson 2002). Although it could be argued that use of self-checkout counters makes the society to be more impersonal and have no human touch, people who use it have reasons for doing so. Such people like interacting with machines because of associated benefits. As indicated earlier, people have different social preferences and interacting with machines gives them pleasure. QUESTION 3 Weber and Sammel provide that the culture of contemporary Western world is exceptionally highly rationalized. This society emphasizes on use of rational procedures and principles to doing things in everyday life. In respect to the process of rationalization, people have to think and act so to operate within a culture that is considered rational and which is based on formalized rules (Inglis, 2005). Actions and thoughts that are rationalized involve figuring out the most efficient ways through which an individual can achieve certain goals. This type of rationality is referred to as Zweckrational and it is different from Wertrational, which involves working with the intention to achieve specific moral goals (Inglis, 2005). Therefore, the process of rationalization involves actions which can either be based around values, such as religious beliefs or on pragmatic achievement of goals that are ordinary in nature. In order for people to achieve their aims in life they have to approach issues in a rational way. For Weber and Sammel, the most important thing for modern culture is to instrumentally pursue goals by adhering to rationalized principles and rules so to achieve these goals more efficiently. Considering the Zweckrational perspective of rationalisation, individuals may think of the ways of achieving their goals without considering the possible repercussions from a moral dimension (Inglis, 2005). This is evidence in the modern society where power reins. Through this kind or rationalization in the society, many people operate under the rule of members of powerful social elite. In most cases, elites can control the minority groups because of believe that it is the way of doing things. It is a means of controlling people through relation and tradition means. This often compromises the freedom of people to make rational decisions in life. This trend has changed to some extent in such as way that the thoughts and actions of individuals are now circumscribed and controlled through consistent application of existing rules and procedures (Inglis, 2005). This means that bureaucracy is applied in the process of rationalisation, whereby people are controlled by use of regulations. The argument behind this type of control is that people would do what they are directed to do because they respect the rules and regulations, as well as the existing bureaucracy. Thus, the ways in which people operate in everyday life are mainly shaped by cultural factors, which are characteristic of the modern society. How the process of rationalization is applied determines our way of everyday life. QUESTIOIN 4 The issue of ‘observer’ is clearly manifested in the work of both Goffmanesque and Foucault, which explains how people, as audiences have to behave in social interactions. Observers are meant to study others as if they are viewing an actor performing on stage before the audience (Sassatelli 1999). Impression management allows people, also considered as audiences to learn from past behaviours so they can be able to make better decisions in time to come. By assessing and interpreting the behaviours of other people, audiences allow such people to learn how to be skillfully interacting with others in the social environment. According to Goffmanesque and Foucault theories people put in use different techniques during social interactions. This helps them to try to take control over the thoughts of others as far as their identity concern. Therefore, in social set-ups, individuals who play the role of observers develop congruence between their self-concept and the feedback that originates from to these social groups to which they belong (Sassatelli 1999). In-deed, the role of observers is to negotiate their contextual meanings when participating in any social interaction. When we, consider the theatrical performance, we can group individuals into two categories: actors and audience. In this case, an actor has to impress his or her audience through appearance and behaviour, which is also considered as actor’s front. Alternatively, an actor may use inanimate objects to communicate the role he or she plays. Similar, an observer plays his or her role by analysing actors’ performance which in one way or another makes the actor to improve his or her performance. In many social interactions, the audience would react to what other people do. While watching, how other perform, the audience evaluates how successful other people have been in playing their role in the social interaction (Schulz 2012). In case an individual is considered to be successful in his or her role by others, the person may develop perceptions of hoe other people will consider his or her role in future. On the other hand, if a person is viewed unsuccessful by others, the he or she may not expect any form of treatment by others. Therefore, the audience determines the success of failure of others in social interactions. In any social arrangement, there has to be an observer through who people can be evaluated whether they performing to the expectations of others of not. Reference List Bennett, Tony and Watson, Diane (eds) 2002, ‘Understanding Everyday Life: Introduction’, in Understanding Everyday Life, Oxford, Blackwell: pp. ix-xix. Inglis, David. 2005, ‘Modern Culture and Everyday’, in Culture and Everyday Life, New York, Routledge: pp 39-75. Sassatelli, Roberta. 1999, ‘Interaction Order and Beyond: A field analysis of body culture within fitness gyms’, in Body and Society 5(2-3): pp. 227-248. Schulz, Heather. 2012, ‘Exploring Dramaturgy in Consumer Research’, Journal of Research for Consumers, (21). Read More