Everydayness in the Space of the Social and the Philosophical Reflection: Theories, Elements and the Principles of Research. - Manuscript (in Ukrainian) (original) (raw)

The concept of everydayness has not been developed enough in the Ukrainian social philosophy and social sciences, but the exploration of everydayness has a long tradition from E. Husserl and M. Heidegger to Michel de Certeau and B. Waldenfels. Everydayness is the sense-making basis for a human being because he/she discovers in it the sense of his/her own life, construes sociality and builds the relations with others. Today we see the growth of the interest to everydayness in the context of pragmatic turn in social philosophy, especially in social phenomenology. A human being is not isolated the Cartesian subject, enclosed in his/her own thinking, or the transcendental subject of idealistic philosophy. After Heidegger’s and Sartre’s research a human being is considered as being-in-the-world: to be in the world means to be in the everydayness. Everydayness is a very changeable, unstable and concrete form of human life. Those characteristics of everyday life do not allow conceptualize it entirely. But today there are some partial theories of everyday life. In the focus of this dissertation, there are such the best developed partial theories, their elements and principles of research. The author considers theoretical and methodological bases of everyday life’s research, the emergence of everyday life as the form of a human being in the historical retrospective (from Ancient to Postmodernity). The author stresses that the best methodology of exploring everydayness is the complex methodology which includes transcendental, phenomenological, hermeneutic methods and the method of deconstruction. Such complex methodology allows exploring the phenomenon of everyday life more completely. The well-developed theories of everydayness contain such elements as a body, self (Me), time, house, habit, repetitiveness, other and others. In this dissertation, those elements have been deeply analyzed. On the basis of such analysis, the author has concluded that the structure of everydayness consists of the mentioned above elements. Some of those elements are spatial (body and house), temporal (repetitiveness), social (self, other and others) and psychological (habit). Hence the structure of everydayness has spatial, temporal, social and psychological characteristics. It does not exist as givenness. It is the result of a human being activity. On the basis of the analysis of everydayness’ elements we can also distinguish its significant characteristics: 1) everyday life is bodily oriented, 2) everyday life practices are based on common sense which makes its pragmatic and utilitarian, 3) everyday life is based on repetitive actions and habits which transform it into the familiar surrounding, 4) everyday life is the sphere of known. The analysis of everydayness’ theories has shown the significance of theoretical and methodological heritage of the representatives of the phenomenology and transcendental phenomenology, but phenomenological and transcendental theories are still incomplete and one-sided. Therefore the author has also concentrated on the philosophy of dialogue which allows deconstructing the transcendental limits of everydayness. In this dissertation, the analysis of partial theories of everyday life and concrete exploration of the phenomenon of everyday life are combined with the meta-theoretical approach to everyday life. Such a meta-theoretical approach could be named consciousness of everyday life’s consciousness. It helps to understand everyday life as the real unity of object and subject when a researcher realizes how clichés, schemes, habits, and customs are produced. The meta-theoretical approach also helps to eliminate objectivism and subjectivism of the previous theories. On the basis of the meta-theoretical approach, the author has developed a meta-theory of everyday life beyond objectivism and subjectivism, which is named as the meta-theory of the dynamic equilibrium of life-world in its poly-subject sociality. Such sociality included the dynamics of ontic practices, based on repetitions, and dynamics of ontological practices, based on changes and innovations. In poly-subject sociality, a human being realized himself/herself not only as Me, as the centre of the objected world, but also as the existence in its dynamics, which longs for freedom and miraculous, longs for creative relations with others. Keywords: everyday life, elements of everyday life, intentionality, ontic, ontological, sociality, the structure of everyday life, dynamic equilibrium of everyday life/life world