Victoria Lopez – 45200270 – Wednesday 1pm
What is time? Time is simply an ubiquitous concept which enforces temporal limits and guidelines upon society. Seconds, minutes, hours, days are ever present measures of our existence. According to Susie Scott, time enables society to “quantify” the human experience, motivating us to arrange ourselves in an ordinal fashion (Scott, 2013). When examining the film, Life in a Day, the concept of time as a social measure becomes very clear (Life in a Day, 2011). The film is shot over a single day – 24 hours – and compiles footage from the perspectives of individuals in 192 different countries (Life in a Day, 2011). The date, a calendrical measure, is 24th July, 2010 (Life in a Day, 2011). This date is significant to many people for a number of reasons. For myself, it was the day before my 12th birthday; for others it may have been the day they were born, married, or even the day a loved one died. However, for the majority it was likely a day like any other – full of the everyday banalities we are so accustomed to. The purpose of this film is to show its audience how; a measure of 24 hours can simultaneously be majorly significant and extremely mundane, and how different time is for people worldwide (Life in a Day, 2011). While most of our everyday is spent in the mundane, there are small glimpses of the extraordinary (Velayutham, 2017). The balance between these extremities ultimately defines the human experience (Velayutham, 2017).
The film displays a poignant collection of footage, arranged in a chronological order from before sunrise to after sunset (Life in a Day, 2011). Those filming are asked to answer some simple questions about their day, including trivial things such “What is in your pocket” and deeper inquisitions such as “What do you love?” Audiences are made aware of the similarities and differences between individuals on an international scale (Life in a Day, 2011). This reflection will focus on two main points; the way in which time dominates social order and how modern times have forged a greater gap between the rich and the poor.
During the introductory moments of the film, a compilation of people from various backgrounds preparing a meal of eggs and/or other breakfast foods shows to audiences just how similar the everyday human experience is on an international scale (Life in a Day, 2011). What is often considered a very banal activity is transformed by the sheer diversity of the individuals involved in the task (Life in a Day, 2011). Moreover, the introductory part of the film also includes a montage of people sleeping, waking up and going to the toilet (Life in a Day, 2011). Irving Goffman refers to these simple, everyday activities as the “backstage” when viewing life dramaturgically, that being, from the perspective of a theatrical production (Goffman, 1959). Goffman’s theory resonates well with the notion of the everyday as, the ‘everyday’ is dominated by these simple, backstage activities (Goffman, 1959). A smaller portion of our lives is spent ‘front stage’, during which social activities are exercised (Goffman, 1959; Life in a Day, 2011; Velayutham, 2017).
The aforementioned montage of everyday banalities also resonates well with Mauss’ theory of habit (Scott, 2013; Velayutham, 2017). Habit, as proposed by Marcel Mauss, suggests that it is not simply a task that we repeat, but rather an attitude we come to possess (Scott, 2013; Velayutham, 2017). Our daily routine becomes an integral part of us and enables us to organise ourselves accordingly. Additionally, Susie Scott believes that the human tendency to habituate is vital – it enables us to fall into a rhythm with which we are familiar and comfortable (Scott, 2013). Feeling comfortable allows us to be satisfied and at ease within ourselves as is obvious when watching a group of men in the film thoroughly enjoying their breakfast routine together (Life in a Day, 2011; Scott, 2013). On the other hand, however, these comfortable rhythms also enable us to dedicate efficient amounts of time to each banal task, therefore, avoiding the dreaded “waste of time” which we tend to view poorly (Scott, 2013).
Whilst everyday banalities, such as cooking or hygiene routines, take up much of our time, they are continuously made more “efficient” so to maximise the value of our time spent. These avoidance behaviours tendencies stem from the belief that time is finite and should therefore, be used in a constructive way (Scott, 2013). This struggle for increasing efficiency can be explained by Weber’s theory of the “Protestant work ethic” (Scott, 2013). Weber’s theory of work ethic enforces the notion that an individual must always be working toward achieving some ultimate goal, whether that be making money or achieving social success (Scott, 2013). Any time wasted is considered economically ‘inefficient.’ In the film, the different technologies used have been created due to this social demand for efficiency (Life in a Day, 2011). A stove and microwave are shown in a few shots – this technology, considered a “labour saving device” by Susie Scott, can be accessed easily by the turn of a switch or the press of a button (Life in a Day, 2011; Scott, 2013). This enables meals to cook at a quicker speed than if an older and more primal technique was used, for example, cooking over a fire. This is the case as fires require firewood and significant physical exhaustion to catch alight. The microwave and stove, whilst taken for granted in a postmodern context, have revolutionised the way we cook (Scott, 2013). Thus, these technologies, as showcased by the filmmakers, are indicative of the ways in which people aim to maximise their time efficiency (Scott, 2013). However, these technologies have also created a wider gap between poverty and wealth in a modern context.
An interesting piece of social commentary that is featured in the film includes the ways in which different people interact with modern technology or the lack thereof. Modernity, which began around the time of the Industrial Revolution, is a phenomenon that has created a fantastic new array of technologies, however, it has also created a larger gap between the first and the third world (Inglis, 2005; Pinch, 2010; Velayutham, 2017). One man in the film sports an orange Lamborghini which he holds to high esteem; this is accompanied by a man who boasts about his headphones which he claims, enables him to efficiently “waste his time” (Day in the Life, 2011). These images of wealth and leisure are then contrasted with images of a derelict family home whereby the lack of technology has lead to poverty and misfortune (Day in the Life, 2011). A family whose time is mostly dedicated toward working for money, to create better living standards for themselves (Day in the Life, 2011) A voiceover says, “we have no food…water…drains,” creating a sombre tone when compared with the images of first world wealth – where wasting time is an unappreciated luxury (Day in the Life, 2011). While modernity has created a more efficient ‘everyday’ for first world society, it has forgotten a great portion of the world’s population (Inglis, 2005; Pinch, 2010).
Conclusively, most of our everyday life is spent completing banal activities. These habitual routines come to define our human existence to the greatest extent. Technologies and modernity have enabled us to become more in touch with the importance of time, and have created greater efficiency when managing it. Day in the Life is ultimately about showing how similar our human experience is worldwide, enabling us to feel more connected with ourselves and each other.
References
Goffman E (1990) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin, pp 1-16
Inglis D (2005) Culture and Everyday Life. New York: Routledge, pp 39-75
Life in a Day (2011) USA: LG, Scott Free Productions, Youtube.
Pinch T (2010) The Invisible Technologies of Goffman’s Sociology from the Merry-Go-Round to the Internet, Technology and Culture 51(2), pp 409-424
Scott S (2013) Making Sense of Everyday Life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, pp 69-91
Velayutham S (2017) Sociology of Everyday Life. Lectures 1-4