So, on one hand, we have a utilitarian narrative in which modernity liberates us from the drudgery of repetitive routines, and allows the free play of choice and rationality. On the other hand there is a romantic narrative which tells us just the opposite, that once we were free to live in nature, but that industrial society has trapped us into an ever-increasing pace of forced routine, that industrial lives are built around the careful choreography of simultaneous rhythms which exhaust and drain us.
One way theorists have tried to reconcile these conflicting stories is to posit two kinds of time, what Lefebvre (2004) calls the ‘homogenous mechanical time’ of industry and the ‘rhythmic cycles’ of nature and the cosmos. This is, of course, an echo of many other dichotomies of linear vs cyclic time, diachrony vs synchrony, structure vs history, hot vs cold, which try to express some fundamental difference between modern and pre-modern experiences of time, an enterprise which Gell convincingly argues is fundamentally flawed and doomed to failure (1992: 28–29). There are many more kinds and dimensions of time than can be captured by a single dichotomy or evolutionary generality.
Framing the question of routines and freedom in this way clearly is insufficient – the discourse of modernity with its associated dichotomies and oppositions pulls the argument towards extremes. How can we more productively think about alternatives to the dichotomy of freedom and bondage, the repetition of ritual and the open possibilities of improvisation? How could we effectively re-map the space of action without the extreme ideal types of free will and determinism?
Defining the Problem
Daily life would be extremely difficult if we did not have habits and routines. This becomes most clear when we move house, go through a disaster or undergo a life transition, and our routines and habits are disrupted. Suddenly we have to become mindful of little things, think through details which we normally take for granted, and which have become deeply embedded and encoded in our built environment and possessions. Bathing and brushing one’s teeth, getting dressed in the morning, preparing a quick meal, all require conscious thought and coordination. This shows us how normal life is an intricate synchronized dance, and how complex it is to maintain our bodies, our intimate self, our families and social relationships, homes, pets, vehicles, finances, communications and health.
Even small disruptions can show us how important routines are in allowing everyday life to proceed. We spend hours trying to find our keys, wallets, simple things which should be in their normal places. For some people, the whole day can be spoiled by the lack of a single item in the habitual breakfast. In old age, as memory fails, the bodily habits ingrained in the geography of a familiar home may be the only thing which makes an autonomous daily life possible.
146
• Richard Wilk