Highmore's Homework

I found Ben Highmore’s essay “Homework” to be rather interesting and quite thought provoking. I liked the relation he pointed out to the ambiguity of everyday life as this is a real factor that plays out. It is almost as if everyday life can not be understood or even explained. Another aspect that Highmore strongly focused on was the emphasis of routine and habits. I find this to play a key role in the attempt to define everyday life. As the everyday is made up of the routines and habits that we do regularly. Even though we tend to find these activities to be mundane, and just sort of going through the motions, we find comfort in having a schedule. I agree with the fact that Highmore feels shame towards always doing the same things as I get very bored with my everyday routine, yet I tend to stay in my comfort zone.

Another key point that Highmore pointed out was the burden and obligation of an everyday routine. He states “the nighttime routines of washing and preparing children for bed can seem like a burdensome routine: one more obligation to fulfill before the day is finally yours.” It puzzels me because if we dislike our everyday routine why do we keep doing it? How is it that we can find comfort and peace in something that we have no interest in? Why don’t more people change their routine and get out of their comfort zone? These are a few questions that I have never before thought of before reading Highmore’s article.

Homework

Homework

I found this reading very interesting and also puzzling. Ben Highmore is very critical of everyday routine, yet shows how everyday routine provides "happiness." Through this happiness, or unwillingness to "break the routine," Highmore is also ashamed that he is stuck in a routine. He expresses how he would like to "pick up new hobbies" or "start a new fitness program," but is stifled by the routine he has locked himself in. I am having a hard time knowing whether routine is necessarily a bad thing or not. If the routine we are in makes us happy isn't that a good thing?

I also found Highmore's connection to work and "being stuck in traffic" interesting. I can very much so relate to this feeling of driving to the office feeling like work, yet at the same time being a momentary escape from the everyday. Much like the traffic jam he describes as a time for us to finally be alone, I have felt this before at a red light. I would hope for it to turn red so I could extend my alone time out a little bit longer. However, this made we wonder.. Are we ever not doing something that is connected to our work? And if we are, how do we know it? If driving to the office is an extension of work then so to is making breakfast in the morning, walking the dog before you leave, and even all of the routine tasks you do when you get home. When we get home we get our routine out of the way so we can feel fulfilled, and this helps us fall asleep so we can get our work out of the way again.

I guess my ultimate question is.. As humans, is it our goal to get work out of the way so we can continue with our other routines, or do we strive to get our routines finished so we can feel fulfilled and continue with our work?

Thoughts?

Homework

            There were a few quotes in Ben Highman’s Homework that I thought were interesting or relatable. The first quote is on page 307 and asks if “the routines and habits of daily life comfort you with their worn and tender familiarity”. I find this quote relatable because I tend to find comfort in routines and habits of my daily life. Towards the end of the summer, I always find myself saying, “I can’t wait for school so I can have a schedule”. I think if there’s too much routine or the same routine continues for a long period of time you can get restless and need something new, and that new, yet familiar, routine becomes comforting because it’s still familiar even though it may be a change up from your previous routine.

            Another quote that can relate to the first one is on page 311 and says that “routines and habits hold on to us and we hold on to them”. I thought this was interesting because we do hold on to habits and routines; it’s what makes them habits/routines by repeatedly doing them and keeping them in our lives.

            One quote that I had difficulty understanding was on page 319 that says “If everyday life suffers from neglect, such neglect should point us to a living ‘politics’ of social life. Such a politics, here at least, starts by giving voice to the dense and often invisible routine worlds of the everyday”. I understand the part about giving a voice to the invisible routine worlds, but the ‘politics’ of social life throws me off a bit.

Routine & Social Aesthetics

I am interested in the way that values and how we define them comes into play when discussing routines and what the every day life truly consists of.  In the very beginning of the essay Highmore asks "Can domestic routines become precious moments... or do their rhythms constantly signal their lack of value?"  and furthermore he asks how can we call attention to these non-events without, in fact, making them events?  I think this question of whether or not a rhythmic activity, a routine activity, has any value is an interesting one because it directly relates to how we look at every day activities, especially those of routine.  If these activities do have value, how do we recognize them without making them the 'event' rather than the ordinary routine.  If we look at this through Giard's lens of 'doing cooking,' it is hard then to attribute recognition and praise to these acts of "ordinary intelligence" that women perform everyday, because they are supposed to be viewed as non-events, as routines, how do we recognize them without changing what they are entirely, and what would it mean if we did?
As I kept reading, I started to think further about why it is necessary for us to even make the distinction between routines and events.  Couldn't the every day in itself be a totality, a coming together of the events and routines that make up our day to day lives?  Also, how are we to define these terms event and routine, and who's responsibility is it to define them?
I was also interested in the idea of memory and reminiscence, both appearing throughout the Highmore reading, especially in the context of doing cooking.  He states, "Remembering and reminiscence are simultaneous with the practicalities of cooking and eating.  Flavours and smells conjure the textures of an intimately experienced past: joy and unhappiness, love and anxiety are the secret cargo of cooking."  It's interesting to me the way the routine and the particular events here come together in the form of a memory.  Maybe the event of this memory didn't seem special at the time, and may have even presently come about in the form of a routine, but has since been remembered as something significant, which speaks to the temporality of the every day as an object.  Can events and routines both be signified as something else at different moments in time?  Or different contexts even?  Memory and temporality then may serve a big role in defining an event or a routine as such.

   In the reading "Doing Cooking" I found a lot of interesting points. First off, it highlights the fact that cooking has been made to be a women's job in today's society. It is described as work with schedule, a work loops in dreary reality, a work without added value and productivity, and a work with a limited duration of satisfaction. I found these critiques pretty harsh. I do believe there is all of these qualities to be found in cooking. Or at least, you could find this harsh reality it any bodies duties; even mens.
   This reading talks about all of the creative qualities it takes to cook. Creativity comes from preparing food from leftovers and calculating cook and preparation time. It is almost as if this reading was giving women credit for being creative and being good problem solvers, but was then shooting them down by saying it is just cooking. It is also interesting how cooking is all of the better of the women's family or anyone eating her food for that matter. It is to maintain a child's good diet and too maintain a good household. The importance of such a role often goes unlooked.

Giard and Friedan

After reading "Doing Cooking" I immediately thought about all the times my mom has said "Let's go out to eat tonight, I don't want to cook". Cooking is made out to be more of a woman's job than a leisure activity. But what I thought was interesting was the whole chef concept. Chef are usually thought of as men, not women, even though cooking is looked at as a woman's role. It supports the stereotypes that women can't be as good in the professional or business world as men. It makes the statement that women should stick to household activities, like taking care of the children or cooking her family dinner. As for Friedan's article, it has the theme that women do things to please men, especially in relationships. The women are the submissive figures and the men are the dominant figures. Women are looked at as not being able to do things for themselves or on their own because they're too incapable.

Giard and Friedan

I found both of these articles to be rather fascinating as I am a women and do not feel that these stereotypes should even be relevant in todays world. However, if I were to take a step back and look at it from another perspective I can definitely see how these article could apply to a women’s everyday life. But in contrast I do not think that anybody’s identity should define them or what their life is like. For example, just because someone is a certain race, religion, or gender they should not be expected to live a different life.  

                  I like how Giard’s article “Doing Cooking” points out how many people view the act of cooking to be mundane yet it is just expected of women. Something that I found very fascinating however, is how Chef’s are typically identified as men. To me this emphasizes the gender inequality as if women can not be good enough cooks to be chefs, but a man who enjoys cooking is much superior to a women cook making him a chef.

                  I found Friedan’s article “The Problem that has No Name” to have an interesting taste. Reading through this article it was clear that this article was written in the 1960’s. My main reaction after reading this article was that women during this time seemed to live just to please men. This makes since with the stereotypes of this time period, however this article almost makes it seem that the women enjoyed living to please men, meanwhile forgetting about themselves.