Kevin Macdonald and Scott Free’s documentary “Life in a day,” (2011), tells the story of mankind through the patchwork of film that captures the everyday lives of people from different cultures around the world. All of the footage in the film, was documented on the same day, the 24th of July 2010, giving it a sense of relatability and adding to it’s overall powerfulness. The film is moving, as it successfully encapsulates the human experience and yet also extremely insightful in helping one understand the sociology of everyday life. This essay aims to relate sociological theories to scenes from the film demonstrating that what may appear obvious and insignificant, can be sociologically meaningful.
“Life in a Day” (2011) begins with videos that are very familiar, morning rituals that are universal, however different in practice among different cultures; people walking, dressing, eating, things that well define the everyday. Juxtaposing themes of first and third countries, suggest that some of the everyday rituals, which we see as mundane, are taken for granted by the western world. For example, in the first scene a man is filmed being woken in the morning by an alarm clock and a child being woken by their parent’s soft tickles. Subsequently we see a homeless man being woken by the blaring noises of the traffic rushing past him, a very harsh reality. This is coherent with what Scott (2009, p. 69) theorizes, as she says that the predictability of our everyday routine, is the cause of us to take the everyday world for granted. This includes the familiar themes of habit, repetition and rhythm that characterize daily life.
However this poses the question as to why there is such universality to the time in which these rituals are performed? Scott (2009, p. 73) suggests that it isn’t because we are forced to do these things at certain times but rather because we have internalized a normative schedule. The human obsession with time is further depicted through different footage of people walking, demonstrating how “clock time” is ruling our everyday lives (Scott, 2009, p.80). An interesting aspect of the clips of people walking is the fact that the focus is on the people’s feet, rather than what is around then while they are walking. Simmel (1950 cited in Inglis, 2005, p.58) suggests that the culture of the city dweller is characterized by self-focus and distraction. This develops a sense of selfishness and coldness towards those around in response to the city life. Therefore in these clips, the subject may be so consumed in their own lives, rushing around, that there is no time to notice the people around them.
This juxtaposition is even further highlighted in the section of the film where people are asked what they have in their pockets. First, clips of a proud man holding his Lamborghini keys, a lady showing off her designer wallets and bags and people taking money out of their pockets are shown. These images are then contrasted to the sad reality of poverty stricken people, revealing that they have nothing in their pockets. Weber (1958 cited in Inglis 2005, p.47) coins the sociological theory of Zweckrational, which asserts that western society has come to evaluate people not in terms of their qualities but rather their quantities. This is very clear in this scene and potentially to the extent that the people in the modern societies are not only evaluating each other based on quantity, but also evaluating their self-worth based solely on their materialistic possessions.
“Life in a Day” (2011) also demonstrated multiple poignant scenes that explored the theme of sadness. Two scenes that stood out to me were the scene of the father and son who have a seemingly ill mother and wife as well as the scene of an old man in the hospital who has just had major heart surgery and is grateful to the nurses for helping him. This man is seemingly on his deathbed, yet he speaks about wanting to go back into the world to “do crazy things and enjoy life.” The raw emotion demonstrated in these two scenes cause the viewer to be enveloped by an overwhelming melancholic feeling. Garcia (2009, p.150) explains these scenes of tragedy as they enable us to realize that some things that we regard as significant may in fact be insignificant and these sad times may change our values and priorities.
Garfinkel’s (1967) ethnomethodology approach offer to the study of everyday life also ties to the “Life in a day” (2011) film. Ethnomethodology is the study of how people rationalise and make meaning out of the chaos of social life. This particularly focuses on how society is ordered, and although it may appear orderly at fact value, there may be a great deal of underlying chaos. Garfinkel (1967) believes that it is the individual who constructs social order in their response to social events and making meaning out of them. I think this resonates with one theme in particular of the film where we see a photographer living in Afghanistan at a time of war. He acknowledges the negativity and the war that is portrayed in the media yet he states that he wants to demonstrate the optimism of the future of his country through positive images. This positivity is shown next to footage of a wife on a Skype call to her husband who is too in Afghanistan, crying and asking for him to be safe in the face of the war he is fighting. This shows two very conflicting responses to the same overarching event.
Pinch (2010, p.410) highlights Goffman’s ‘Dramaturgical’ theory which he likens the everyday life to one of a theatre play. I think this resonates with one of the final scenes of the “life in a Day” (2011) film, which sees a girl who is sitting in her car and explains how she waited all day for something exciting to happen for her to film and submit for the documentary. She appears disappointed as she explains that she wants people to know that she is alive and that she doesn’t want to cease to exist. In Pinch’s essay (2010, p. 411) he draws on Goffman’s suggestion that there is distinction between behaviors that a person exhibits when they are on display, as opposed to when they are in private. This is what he refers to as being “on stage” and “off stage.” I think this scene from the film really encapsulates this sociological theory as it appears the girl in this scene it attempting to show her “on stage” self, but by the nature raw material presented in this film, she courageously reveals her “off stage” self.
I think the lasting impression of this film is the unity of the human race as well as a celebration of human life. This is done successfully through demonstrating all walks of life, where shared themes to all humanity are explored. This is perfectly encapsulated in the final scene with the lanterns flying up into the air. The film was the ultimate reality show demonstrating themes that are felt by everyone, no matter what culture or country a person comes from; touching on life, death, laughter, marriage, farming, love and rejection. Therefore we are different, but we are really all the same.
Reference List:
Garcia, Jorge J. 2000. ‘The Secret of Seinfeld’s Humor’, Chapter 11 in Seinfeld and Philosophy. William Irwin (ed.) Illinois: Open Court pp140-151.
Garfinkel, Harold. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. New Jersey: PRENTICE-HALL, INc., Englewood Cliffs.
Inglis, David. 2005. ‘Modern Culture & Everyday’ in Culture and Everyday Life. New York: Routledge. pp 39-75.
Life in a Day 2011, DVD recording, Scott Free Films/ YouTube. USA, USA
Pinch, Trevor. 2010. ‘The Invisible Technologies of Goffman’s Sociology from the Merry-Go-Round to the Internet’, Technology and Culture 51(2): 409-424.
Scott, Sussie. 2009. 'Time' (chapter 5) in Making Sense of Everyday Life. Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 69-91.