Everyday Life Reconsidered: Relations Between Rita Felski’s and Michel de Certeau’s Concepts of the Everyday

The relationship between Rita Felski’s and Michel de Certeau’s concepts of the everyday is best understood as a tense but productive dialogue between two complementary, yet differently oriented, theoretical projects. De Certeau’s Practice of Everyday Life foregrounds the inventive, tactical capacities of ordinary people as they appropriate and “poach” on the products and spaces organized by powerful institutions, thereby refiguring consumption as a dispersed, creative mode of production.¹²³ Felski, by contrast, sets out to reconstruct “everyday life” as a more capacious analytic category, grounded in temporal repetition, spatial anchoring in home, and the modality of habit, while simultaneously warning against the tendency within cultural and feminist theory to romanticize daily life as a privileged site of subversion.[^1]⁴⁵⁶ Where de Certeau highlights micro-resistances within the mundane, Felski emphasizes the ambivalence of everyday existence as a texture of comfort and boredom, constraint and possibility, deeply imbricated with gendered and classed histories and with long philosophical and sociological debates about modernity.[^1]⁴⁵ The two concepts intersect around a shared insistence that the ordinary is neither mere background noise nor a transparent reflection of social structures, but a complex field in which structures and subjects meet; yet they diverge in their emphases, methods, and political imaginaries, with de Certeau privileging practices of “making do” and Felski insisting on the need to theorize the temporal, spatial, and affective architectures that make such practices possible.[^1]⁴¹²³⁶

The Intellectual Problem of “Everyday Life”

Any attempt to relate Felski’s and de Certeau’s concepts of the everyday must begin by acknowledging that “everyday life” is itself an unstable and historically specific category rather than a neutral descriptive label. Felski opens “The Invention of Everyday Life” by remarking that everyday life is at once the “most self-evident, yet the most puzzling of ideas,” a notion that seems wholly obvious but becomes elusive the moment one tries to define it.[^1] Everyday life appears as the “essential, taken-for-granted continuum of mundane activities” that frames our forays into more spectacular or exceptional realms, the “unavoidable basis” for all other forms of human endeavor.[^1] Precisely because of this self-evidence, however, the everyday tends to escape scrutiny: it is what we live in and through, but do not usually step back to analyze. While phenomenological and sociological traditions have explicitly tried to theorize everyday life, Felski notes that much of this writing has been slow to filter into cultural studies and feminism, partly because of its abstract philosophical idiom and partly because of a persistent bias toward the exceptional event over ordinary routine.[^1]⁴

De Certeau, for his part, begins from a similar sense that the everyday is both omnipresent and theoretically underarticulated. The Practice of Everyday Life explicitly responds to the fact that social science had developed refined tools to study macro-structures, discourses, and institutions, but had far fewer means for grasping how people “reappropriate” systems, texts, and spatial orders in the course of ordinary usage.²³ His project seeks to track the “arts of doing”—walking, reading, shopping, dwelling, talking—that constitute a diffuse, often invisible “network of antidiscipline” enacted by marginal or non-powerful actors within the spaces and products defined by institutional “strategies.”²³⁷ The everyday, for de Certeau, is not primarily a domain of objects or a sociological category but a field of practices, an ensemble of tactics through which users navigate, manipulate, and momentarily recode the systems that claim to organize their lives.¹²³

What Felski and de Certeau share, then, is a rejection of two reductionist tendencies in earlier thought about ordinary life. On the one hand, both resist the pessimistic image of everyday existence as sheer passivity, alienation, or inauthenticity, a view associated with elements of Lukács, Heidegger, the Frankfurt School, and certain readings of Lefebvre.[^1]⁵⁸⁹¹ On the other hand, both resist the idea that the everyday is simply transparent, so obvious as to need no theoretical attention. Yet their routes out of these impasses differ. Felski turns to phenomenology and sociology to propose a conceptual triad—time, space, modality—that can capture the structural features of everyday experience.⁴⁵⁶ De Certeau, in contrast, turns to semiotics, linguistics, and narrative theory to develop a conceptual dyad—strategy and tactic—that can grasp the micrological, often improvisational practices by which users “make do” with a given social order.¹²³ Their concepts of the everyday are therefore related less as competing definitions of the same object than as differently angled, partially overlapping mappings of a shared problem-space.

Rita Felski’s Concept of the Everyday

Everyday Life as Time, Space, and Modality

Central to Felski’s approach is the claim that everyday life should be conceptualized not as a diffuse catch-all for everything that is not exceptional, but through a set of analytic dimensions that recur across very different social contexts. Drawing on the work of Henri Lefebvre, Agnes Heller, and Alfred Schutz, she proposes that everyday life can be defined in terms of three key facets: time, space, and modality.⁴⁵⁶ The temporality of the everyday is that of repetition, its spatial ordering is anchored in a sense of home, and its characteristic experiential mode is that of habit.⁴⁵⁶ This triad, as summarized by later commentators such as Ebrey, allows Felski to articulate an understanding of everyday life that is simultaneously phenomenological, sociological, and historically informed.⁵

Repetition, for Felski, marks the everyday as the domain of what happens “day after day.”[^1] Sleep, meals, commuting, housework, and wage labor follow diurnal rhythms embedded in larger cycles such as weekends, holidays, semesters, and seasons.[^1]⁴ She aligns herself here with Lefebvre’s insistence that cyclical temporal structures are quintessential to the everyday, both as a source of its monotony and as the condition of its reliability and comfort.⁴⁵ Repetition is not reducible to mechanical recurrence; it is experienced as a texture of sameness that can be reassuring and deadening at once, making the ordinary both the ground of routine and the site of frustration and entrapment.[^1]⁴⁶

Spatially, Felski argues, everyday life is anchored in “home,” understood not merely as a physical dwelling but as a nexus of routinized activities, affective investments, and material arrangements that give stability and coherence to daily existence.[^1]⁴⁶ While she acknowledges that earlier phenomenological accounts often idealize the home as a stable point of orientation in the world, she stresses that the home is actively produced over time through labor and practice, “in de Certeau’s terms, an active practising of place.”⁶ The familiarity of home is not given but made, often through gendered and classed divisions of work, as in the domestic labor historically performed by women.[^1]⁵⁶ Moreover, the boundaries between home and “outside” are porous, as media, commodities, and social norms circulate across this supposed divide, reshaping domestic life in historically specific ways, from the suburban bungalow to the Martha Stewart–style aestheticization of domesticity.[^1]⁶

Modality, finally, refers to the mode of experiencing everyday life, which Felski identifies as habit. Habit here does not simply mean unthinking repetition but a patterned orientation to the world, a set of embodied and cognitive routines that render certain actions and perceptions second nature.⁴⁶ Everyday life is “synonymous with habit, sameness, routine; it epitomizes both the comfort and boredom of the ordinary.”⁶ Habits sustain the stability of daily life but can also inhibit reflection and change, contributing to the sense that the everyday “escapes” critical scrutiny precisely because it feels so familiar and self-evident.[^1]⁶ By framing the everyday in terms of repetition, home, and habit, Felski offers an alternative to those cultural theories that treat daily life primarily as a field of resistance or as a residue of larger economic structures. Instead, she foregrounds the experiential, affective, and organizational textures that make certain forms of agency possible and others difficult.

Everyday Life, Democracy, and the Ordinary

Felski insists that everyday life has a profoundly democratic dimension because it points to a shared, embodied embeddedness in mundane activities that cuts across dramatic differences in social status.[^1] Everyone, “from the most famous to the most humble,” must eat, sleep, and defecate; “no one escapes the reach of the quotidian.”[^1] The concept of everyday life therefore not only describes the lives of those identified as “ordinary people,” but also reminds us that every life contains an element of ordinariness; stars and statesmen are as anchored in mundane routines as housewives or factory workers.[^1]⁵ Everyday life here functions as a leveling term, countering the elitist tendency within traditional aesthetics and political theory to focus on the extraordinary deed, the great event, or the moment of crisis.

At the same time, Felski emphasizes that this democratic thrust must not lead us to ignore the profound heterogeneity of everyday experiences across different cultural, social, and historical contexts. The very fact that everyone participates in the everyday does not mean that everyone’s everyday is the same. Gender, class, race, and global location inflect the structure and meaning of daily life in ways that cannot be captured by abstract generalities. Felski is particularly attuned to the association of the everyday with women and the working class in both social thought and popular discourse.[^1]⁵ The suburban housewife and the industrial laborer often function as paradigmatic figures of the everyday, symbolizing monotony, routine, and material necessity. Yet such figures, she argues, are themselves historically specific constructions that may obscure other forms of ordinary existence, including those shaped by migration, precarious labor, or political violence.

This is why Felski underscores both the necessity and the difficulty of talking about “everyday life in general” at a time when cultural studies has been so strongly oriented toward the specific, the local, and the particular.[^1] She does not reject particularism but worries that an exclusive focus on specificity has led to a neglect of the everyday as a category of analysis. If everyday life is always and only the infinitely particular, it becomes impossible to theorize its recurring structures or to connect experiences across contexts. Felski’s triad of time, space, and modality is an attempt to strike a balance between generality and specificity, to propose analytic dimensions that recur across cases without collapsing their differences. In this sense, her concept of the everyday is related to de Certeau’s, in that both seek to reinsert the ordinary into theory as a domain of patterned, meaningful activity rather than an undifferentiated backdrop, even as they adopt different strategies for negotiating the tension between generalization and the singular.

Everyday Life, Theory, and the Critique of Romanticized Resistance

A crucial part of Felski’s intervention lies in her critique of the way everyday life had been taken up in feminist and cultural theory, often under the influence of de Certeau. She notes that de Certeau’s Practice of Everyday Life inspired numerous readings of daily life as synonymous with acts of resistance and subversion.[^1] In such accounts, the mundane practices of consumption, domesticity, and leisure are interpreted as sites of creative appropriation, tactical play, and quietly subversive “making do” that undermine the strategies of capitalist and patriarchal systems.¹²³ Felski acknowledges the appeal and importance of this move away from structuralist and Frankfurt School images of passive, duped consumers.[^1]⁵¹ Yet she worries that in the process, the everyday is in danger of being romanticized as a privileged locus of agency and resistance, a perspective that can obscure its equally powerful dimensions of tedium, constraint, and complicity.

From Felski’s vantage point, the everyday cannot be reduced to either oppression or resistance. It is both “the unavoidable basis for all other forms of human endeavor” and a realm characterized by banality and repetition.[^1]⁴ Drawing on Lefebvre, she stresses that everyday life is simultaneously a colonized setting of routine, passivity, and unconsciousness and a locus of potential liberation, a place where “creative energy is stored in readiness for new creations,” but also where people can be deeply trapped in established rhythms and roles.⁸ To emphasize only the subversive possibilities of tactics risks underestimating the ways in which daily routines reproduce social hierarchies and norms. In this respect, Felski’s concept of the everyday offers a corrective to some of the more celebratory uses of de Certeau in cultural studies, without rejecting his focus on practice. She relocates his insights within a broader phenomenology of everyday temporality and spatiality, insisting that tactics occur within, and are constrained by, structures of repetition, home, and habit.

Michel de Certeau’s Concept of the Everyday

Everyday Life as Practice: Strategy, Tactic, and Consumption-as-Production

In contrast to Felski’s explicit attempt to define everyday life as a category, de Certeau famously refuses to offer a straightforward definition of “everyday life” in The Practice of Everyday Life, preferring instead to trace its manifestations in the practices through which people inhabit and traverse structured spaces and systems.³ The book’s central and most influential contribution lies in its distinction between “strategies” and “tactics,” a conceptual pair that he adapts from military theory and redeploys as a way of thinking about the relationship between powerful institutions and ordinary users in modern societies.²³¹⁰¹¹

Strategies, in de Certeau’s sense, are the mechanisms by which institutions and structures of power—states, corporations, scientific institutions, city planners, property owners—define and delimit a “proper” place from which they can manage relationships with external entities such as subjects, customers, or competitors.²³¹¹ Strategies presuppose a place of one’s own, a vantage point from which one can calculate, order, and regulate. They underlie the design of city grids, the production of mass media, the rational organization of workplaces, and the codification of laws and norms. In modernity, de Certeau suggests, strategies produce a homogeneous, rationalized order that claims to encompass social life.

Tactics, by contrast, are the “arts of the weak,” the ways in which those who do not control an institutional place—consumers, pedestrians, readers, marginalized subjects—make use of the spaces and products organized by strategies.^1231011 Tactics do not have a “proper” place of their own; they operate on the terrain defined by others, seizing opportunities, making do with what is available, and improvising momentary advantages. A tactic is a calculated action determined by the absence of a place: it must constantly maneuver in the gaps and interstices of strategic systems. Unlike strategies, which aim at long-term control, tactics are opportunistic, transient, and adaptive; they are “actions in a constant state of reassessment and correction,” responding to unpredictable changes in the environment.¹¹

The everyday, in de Certeau’s conceptualization, is the field in which such tactics are continually deployed. He is especially interested in what he calls “consumption-as-production,” the idea that consumers are not passive recipients of mass-produced goods and messages but active users who transform these products through the ways they employ them.¹²³ Reading, for instance, is not simply decoding a text but “poaching” on it, appropriating fragments, skipping, reinterpreting, and weaving the text into one’s own narratives and desires.²³ Similarly, television viewers, cooks, and travelers refunction the offerings of producers according to their own logics. As Demirpolat summarizes, de Certeau insists “that the consumers are not passive agents against the ‘strategies’ produced by the system as they reproduce all kinds of products offered to them by the market through their ‘tactics’,” thereby transforming consumption into a creative, even artistic process.¹

In this way, de Certeau’s everyday is characterized by an underlying inventiveness. What marks the everyday is a creativity that responds to the rationalized, commodified structures of modern life by “making do” and “making with” the resources they provide.¹³¹² Everyday practices do not stand outside the system but operate within it, repurposing and remixing its materials in ways that are influenced but never fully determined by strategic logics. Where Felski defines everyday life in terms of repetition, home, and habit, de Certeau defines it through the inventive and tactical use of already-made cultural and spatial orders. These two perspectives are not mutually exclusive, but they privilege different aspects of the same phenomenon.

Everyday Life and Lived Space: Walking in the City

De Certeau’s most famous illustration of everyday tactics is his essay “Walking in the City,” where he contrasts the panoptic view of the city from above—epitomized by looking out from a skyscraper—with the lived experience of the pedestrian threading her way through streets and neighborhoods.⁷¹³ From above, the city appears as a legible, totalizing text, a grid of streets and zones that urban planners and administrators can map, regulate, and optimize. This is the space of strategic rationality, where the city is imagined and organized as a coherent whole.

By contrast, the walker moves within this grid, enacting paths that may follow, deviate from, or creatively circumvent the official map. “They walk,” he writes; these walkers are “Wandersmänner, whose bodies follow the thicks and thins of an urban ‘text’ they write without being able to read.”⁷ Pedestrian movement traces sentences on the city’s surface, but these sentences are not legible to any central author; they are ephemeral, fragmented, and “stubborn procedures that elude discipline without being outside the field in which it is exercised.”⁷ The everyday experience of the city is thus one of “lived space,” not the abstract space of planners but the disquieting familiarity of routes, shortcuts, detours, and encounters that compose a constantly shifting narrative.

In this figure of walking, we can see how de Certeau’s concept of the everyday emphasizes practice over structure. Everyday life is the art of “making do” with the city, an art involving tactical improvisations that both obey and subvert the official organization of space. The walker uses the streets but may take unauthorized paths, create desire lines across lawns, and appropriate seemingly neutral spaces for intimate or communal purposes. This corresponds to his broader insistence that everyday practices form a “multifarious and silent ‘reserve’ of procedures” that can undergird a less oppressive society, even though they lack the organized discourse and explicit visibility of institutional strategies.⁸

Spatially, then, de Certeau’s everyday is urban and mobile, oriented toward the public thoroughfare rather than the domestic interior. This does not mean he ignores the home, but his paradigmatic figure of the everyday user tends to be the city-stroller, the commuter, the reader—what Ries calls the “Euro-American city-strolling/riding/reading/storytelling/television-watching bricoleur” who has become the emblematic protagonist of de Certeau’s everyday in cultural theory.¹⁴ This emphasis contrasts sharply with Felski’s focus on the home as the spatial anchor of everyday life and has important implications for how each theorist conceptualizes gender and power, as we will see later.

Everyday Life, Power, and the Network of Antidiscipline

Politically, de Certeau’s concept of everyday life is oriented around the idea of dispersed, micro-level resistance enacted through tactics. He sees modern society as structured by pervasive mechanisms of discipline and rationalization, echoing Foucault and the Frankfurt School, but he rejects a purely pessimistic view of consumers as wholly captured by the “strategies” of producers.¹²³ Instead, he insists that “there exists an element of creative resistance” within the routines of ordinary people, a creativity that rarely coalesces into open rebellion but nonetheless undermines the totalizing ambitions of strategic systems.²³

The “network of antidiscipline” that emerges from everyday tactics is not an organized counter-power but a diffuse field of practices that “trick” or “game” the system.³ This network operates by appropriating the tools and rules of dominant orders and using them in unintended ways. These might include reinterpreting media messages, bending workplace rules, using official spaces for unofficial sociality, or infusing commodified rituals with personal or collective meanings. Because tactics lack a proper place, they cannot establish enduring alternative structures; their power lies precisely in their mobility and adaptability. This makes them difficult to capture and evaluate, but it also means that everyday life is never entirely colonized by strategic rationality.

Yet de Certeau is cautious about overestimating the political efficacy of these tactics. They are not revolutionary strategies; they do not overturn existing structures but inhabit them differently. In this sense, his concept of everyday life is both optimistic and modest: optimistic because it reveals unexpected creativity and agency among those traditionally cast as passive consumers, modest because this agency is local, temporary, and often unrecognized by existing political frameworks. Later readers, particularly within cultural studies, sometimes amplify the optimistic side, celebrating tactics as inherently subversive, and it is this tendency that Felski seeks to temper.[^1]⁵¹³ Nonetheless, de Certeau’s formulation remains one of the most influential accounts of everyday life as practice, against which Felski explicitly measures her own proposal.

Points of Convergence: Shared Concerns and Complementary Insights

A Common Challenge to Elitist and Pessimistic Traditions

Despite their differences, Felski and de Certeau converge in their challenge to dominant intellectual traditions that marginalize or denigrate the everyday. Both respond critically to philosophical and sociological discourses that equate everyday life with inauthenticity, triviality, or ideological blindness. Felski emphasizes that for thinkers such as Lukács and Heidegger, the everyday often stands for a “gray, aesthetically impoverished existence,” opposed to authentic being or critical consciousness.[^1] In some versions of Marxist and Frankfurt School theory, daily life appears as the sphere in which capitalist reification and cultural industry most thoroughly capture subjectivity, leaving little room for agency.[^1]⁵¹

De Certeau likewise targets the tendency within structuralist and Marxist frameworks to treat consumers as passive, their practices as mere reflections of dominant structures. Against this, he insists that consumption involves a hidden production, a set of tactical operations that transform the meanings and uses of products.¹²³ Consumers are “not passive agents,” Demirpolat notes, but subjects who “transform any symbolic and material products offered to them by the system” through their own operational logics.¹ Through this lens, everyday practices become a site of creativity and unpredictability, challenging the assumption that macro-level structures fully determine micro-level behaviors.

Both theorists also seek to correct the elitism of discourses that focus exclusively on exceptional events, heroic actions, or avant-garde artworks. Felski insists that the everyday is “the ultimate nonnegotiable reality,” the unavoidable basis for all other forms of human endeavor, and thus deserves theoretical attention in its own right.[^1] De Certeau, for his part, writes not about revolutions or crises but about walking, reading, cooking, and talking—the “minor” practices that compose the fabric of daily life. By redirecting theory’s gaze toward the ordinary, both contribute to what Bennett and Watson, and later Ebrey, describe as a twentieth-century “invention” of everyday life as an object of inquiry in its own right.⁵

Everyday Life as Structured Yet Open

Another point of convergence lies in their shared understanding of everyday life as simultaneously structured and open, shaped by larger social processes but also constitutive of them. Ebrey observes that “life in the everyday, the seemingly unimportant participation of actors in its mundane practices and places, both constitutes and is constitutive of larger social processes.”⁵ This captures a core intuition common to Felski and de Certeau.

For Felski, everyday life is organized by temporal cycles, spatial patterns, and habitual modalities that reflect and reproduce social structures, including capitalist labor rhythms, domestic divisions of labor, and culturally specific notions of home.[^1]⁴⁵⁶ These patterns are not merely individual choices but manifestations of broader social and historical forces. Yet at the same time, she insists that everyday life is the ground of all action and meaning, the site where people negotiate, live through, and sometimes alter the conditions imposed on them.[^1]⁴⁸

De Certeau similarly recognizes that everyday practices occur within spaces and systems defined by institutional strategies. The street grid, the supermarket, the television schedule, the bureaucratic calendar—all are products of strategic rationalities. Yet within these structures, users exercise a tactical creativity that can neither be fully predicted nor completely controlled.²³⁷ Everyday life is thus structurally constrained but not structurally determined; it is a zone where structure and agency intersect in complex ways.

From this perspective, Felski’s emphasis on repetition and habit and de Certeau’s emphasis on tactics can be seen as addressing two sides of the same coin. Repetition and habit describe the stability and predictability of everyday temporality and conduct, which are necessary conditions for social life. Tactics describe the small deviations, improvisations, and appropriations that occur within these patterns. Both are necessary to a full understanding of the everyday. Put differently, Felski conceptualizes the everyday’s form, while de Certeau foregrounds its improvisatory content.

Everyday Life, Modernity, and the Long Tradition of Critique

Both theorists also situate their concepts of the everyday within a longer tradition of thinking about modernity. Felski explicitly draws on Henri Lefebvre’s Critique of Everyday Life, as well as Heller and Schutz, to argue that everyday life becomes a problem in modernity because of the increasing differentiation between spheres (work, leisure, politics, art) and the growing dominance of abstract systems.⁴⁵⁹ Lefebvre himself emphasizes the “mutual dependence and individual incompleteness of the everyday and the modern,” calling them “two sides of a reality more amazing than fiction.”⁵ Everyday life is both colonized by modern systems and a reservoir of “creative energy” that can fuel transformation.⁸

De Certeau acknowledges Lefebvre as a “fundamental source” and similarly sees modernity as characterized by rationalized strategies that seek to organize social life.⁸⁹ However, he locates his own project more squarely in the longue durée of “social micro-behaviour,” offering a “phenomenology of social micro-behaviour” rather than a grand historical narrative of modernity.⁹ Both, however, engage with the question of how ordinary practices are reshaped under modern conditions and how they might become sites of contestation or renewal. Felski’s and de Certeau’s concepts of the everyday are thus related not only to each other but also to a broader field of modern social theory, within which they occupy distinctive but overlapping positions.

Points of Divergence: Different Emphases, Methods, and Political Imaginaries

Definition versus Non-definition: Conceptualizing the Everyday

One of the most striking differences between Felski and de Certeau lies in their explicitness about defining “everyday life.” Felski is acutely aware of the “slipperiness” of the concept and sees her task as providing a clearer, more operationalizable definition grounded in phenomenological and sociological analysis.[^1]⁴⁵ Her triad of time, space, and modality is an attempt to specify what makes the everyday distinctive, without reducing it to particular empirical contents or romanticized images.⁴⁵⁶

De Certeau, conversely, avoids defining everyday life in the abstract. As commentators have noted, his book “avoids a definition of the term ‘everyday life’” and instead “makes an important case about the manifestations of everyday life in the practices that people adopt.”³ Everyday life emerges in his work as the name for a set of practices—the “arts of doing”—rather than as a clearly delimited category. This reluctance to define may stem partly from his suspicion of totalizing theoretical frameworks; he prefers to track specific practices (walking, reading, dwelling) and to theorize the logic of tactics and strategies that underlies them.²³⁷

This difference in conceptual style affects their relationship to each other. Felski treats de Certeau as one influential figure within the larger history of everyday theory, whose emphasis on practice and resistance has powerfully shaped cultural studies’ understanding of daily life.[^1] She explicitly seeks to “piece together an alternative definition of everyday life” that differs markedly from how everyday life is often conceptualized in cultural studies, where de Certeau-inspired notions of tactics and micro-resistance are prominent.⁴⁵ Thus her concept of the everyday is formulated partly in response to his, as both complement and corrective.

Space: Home versus Street, Domestic versus Urban

Spatially, Felski and de Certeau orient their analyses around different paradigmatic sites of the everyday. For Felski, the everyday is “anchored in a sense of home,” which functions as both material and symbolic center of routine life.⁴⁶ Home is where rhythms of repetition are most palpable—meals cooked, laundry done, children cared for—and where habit is most visible as an embodied modality. She emphasizes that home is actively produced through labor, especially women’s labor, and that the ideology and reality of home change dramatically over time.[^1]⁶ Felski’s everyday is thus deeply tied to questions of domesticity, gender, and the intimate sphere.

De Certeau, by contrast, focuses his most vivid analyses of everyday life on public, urban spaces and on practices of movement through them. The emblematic scene of everyday practice in The Practice of Everyday Life is walking in the city, where pedestrians tactically navigate the strategic grid.⁷¹³ Other examples include commuting, shopping, riding the subway, or navigating bureaucratic systems.²³ Even when he discusses dwelling, his interest lies less in the affective experience of home than in the ways users appropriate and reorganize domestic spaces through tactical practices.

This difference has significant implications. Felski’s home-centered everyday highlights how ordinary life has historically been feminized and associated with the private sphere, encouraging a feminist rethinking of domestic routine and its political significance.[^1]⁵⁶ De Certeau’s city-centered everyday, on the other hand, foregrounds mobility, public space, and the vernacular re-use of planned environments, often through figures implicitly coded as masculine flâneurs or bricoleurs.¹⁴ As Ries notes, a kind of master narrative has developed around the everyday, with de Certeau’s city-strolling figure and the “woman of suburbia” as its core protagonists, but these figures remain strongly Western and gendered in ways that can obscure other everyday geographies and subjectivities.¹⁴⁵

By formulating the everyday around home, Felski implicitly critiques the masculinist bias of urban-centered accounts and expands the field to include domestic labor, emotional care, and the micro-temporalities of childcare and housework. At the same time, integrating de Certeau’s approach allows us to see how the domestic is itself crisscrossed by tactics, as users appropriate domestic spaces and commodities in ways not fully determined by gender norms or market logics. The relationship between their concepts is thus one of partial correction and possible synthesis.

Temporality and Tactics: Repetition versus Opportunistic Kairos

Temporality is another axis along which Felski and de Certeau differ, even as they implicitly presuppose each other’s insights. Felski places temporality at the forefront, defining the everyday as a temporal term that conveys “the fact of repetition” rather than singularity.⁴⁶ Diurnal and cyclical rhythms—sleep, work, weekends, holidays—structure everyday life and make possible both its comfort and its boredom.[^1]⁴ This focus on repetition highlights how everyday time can be experienced as both oppressive and sustaining, as the time of “doing time” in routinized roles and as the time through which identities and relations are maintained.⁴

De Certeau, conversely, is less concerned with the macro-structure of everyday temporality and more with the micro-temporal logic of tactical action. A tactic, he writes, must seize “the opportunity” (the kairos) offered by circumstances; it is a calculated action without a proper place, dependent on the momentary openings in the strategic order.²³¹¹ Tactics are thus characterized by short-term, opportunistic time, constantly responding to changing conditions. Everyday practices, in his sense, are always in an “OODA loop” of observing, orienting, deciding, and acting, with no guarantee of stability.¹¹

The relationship between repetition and tactics can be understood as one between the temporal structure within which tactics occur and the micro-temporal operations that momentarily inflect or deviate from that structure. Felski’s everyday repeats “day after day”; de Certeau’s everyday acts “moment by moment.” The repetitive cycles of everyday time create both the conditions that tactics must accept (working hours, commuting schedules, domestic routines) and the boredom or frustration that may motivate tactical improvisations. Conversely, the accumulation of tactics over time may subtly transform the feel and meaning of repetitive cycles, making them more bearable, more personally meaningful, or more ambivalent.

Thus, while Felski and de Certeau emphasize different temporal aspects of the everyday, their concepts are mutually illuminating. Felski reminds us that tactics do not occur in a temporal vacuum; they are embedded in repetitive rhythms that constrain their possibilities. De Certeau reminds us that repetition is never pure; it is always enacted through practices that can bend, appropriate, or subvert the patterns they inhabit.

Modality and Agency: Habit versus Inventiveness

Felski and de Certeau also diverge in their primary modal characterization of everyday life. For Felski, the modality of the everyday is habit, which she understands as a mode of experience marked by familiarity, sameness, and routine.⁴⁶ Habit is what gives stability to daily life and allows us to act without constant deliberation. It can be comforting but also numbing, making us overlook the very structures we inhabit. Habitual modes of being correspond, in many ways, to what Schutz and Berger & Luckmann describe as the taken-for-granted “lifeworld,” the background horizon of practical consciousness.⁴⁵

De Certeau, on the other hand, characterizes the everyday through the modality of inventiveness. Everyday practices are inventive responses to strategic systems; they involve trickery, opportunism, and the “art of making-do.”¹²³¹¹ The everyday user is not primarily a creature of habit but a bricoleur, constantly cobbling together improvised uses of existing cultural materials.¹⁴¹³ This modality emphasizes creativity, adaptability, and even a kind of artistry in ordinary actions.

These different emphases are not mutually exclusive—habits can be inventive, and tactics can become habitual—but they lead to distinct political and affective readings of the everyday. Felski’s focus on habit foregrounds the weight of routine and the ambivalence of familiarity, which encompasses comfort, boredom, and a sense that “the everyday escapes” critical thought.[^1]⁶ De Certeau’s focus on inventiveness foregrounds the pleasures and cunning of micro-resistance, the satisfaction of “getting around” the system.

Felski is wary of the way de Certeau’s inventiveness has been read by some as an unambiguous form of resistance. She insists that everyday life must be seen as a field in which agency and passivity, creativity and conformity, coexist and intertwine.[^1]⁵ People may exercise tactics that make domination more bearable without fundamentally challenging it; they may also find genuine joy and meaning in routines that are structurally imposed. Habits can incorporate tactics, and tactics can routinize into habits. Here, the relationship between their concepts is again dialogical: de Certeau helps draw our attention to the inventive capacities embedded in daily routines, while Felski helps us see the limits and ambivalence of that inventiveness.

Gender, Subject Position, and the Figure of the Everyday Actor

The typical subject of everyday life also differs in Felski’s and de Certeau’s accounts. Felski is explicitly feminist in her orientation, repeatedly noting how everyday life has been associated with women and the working class in both theory and public discourse.[^1]⁵ She draws attention to the gendered division of labor that makes women disproportionately responsible for the invisible, repetitive work of maintaining homes and families. Her concept of the everyday is oriented around figures such as the housewife, the working mother, and the female caregiver, whose ordinary lives have often been marginalized in philosophical and political reflection.[^1]⁵⁶

De Certeau, by contrast, generally presents his everyday subject in gender-neutral terms: the consumer, the reader, the walker. Yet, as Ries points out, the figure that has been most often invoked in commentary on his work is the “Euro-American city-strolling/riding/reading/storytelling/television-watching bricoleur.”¹⁴ This figure implicitly draws on masculinist traditions of the flâneur and the urban intellectual, even as de Certeau seeks to recover the agency of marginalized “non-producers” of culture.¹⁴³ The gendered dimension of everyday practices is thus underdeveloped in his account, leaving it to later feminist scholars, including Felski, to rework his insights in relation to domestic and care labor.

Moreover, de Certeau’s everyday subject is defined primarily by marginality in relation to institutional power—“the non-producers of culture,” the subjugated who deploy tactics against strategies.¹⁴¹³ Felski, while attentive to marginalization, insists that everyday life is not the exclusive property of the marginal; it is a dimension of existence shared by all, including elites.[^1] This insistence on the universality of the everyday as a condition of embodiment and temporality introduces a different kind of democratic impulse than de Certeau’s focus on the weak versus the powerful. For Felski, the question is not only how the powerless resist but also how everyone lives through mundane routines and how these routines are valued or devalued in culture.

Mediating Figures: Lefebvre, Anthropology, and Feminist Revisions

Lefebvre as a Shared Reference Point

Henri Lefebvre serves as a crucial mediating figure between Felski and de Certeau. Lefebvre’s Critique of Everyday Life was, as he himself notes, a “fundamental source” for de Certeau, who acknowledges this debt in his general introduction.⁹ Lefebvre conceptualizes everyday life as both colonized and potentially liberating, a sphere of routine that is also a reservoir of creative energy, “a lower sphere of meaning” that can be elevated but also a place where “creative energy is stored in readiness for new creations.”⁸ He insists on the complementarity of the modern and the quotidian as “two sides of a reality,” each incomplete without the other.⁵⁸

De Certeau takes from Lefebvre the idea that everyday life is not simply oppressed but also capable of generating new meanings and practices. However, he departs from Lefebvre’s more historically oriented narrative of modernity, confining himself instead to a “phenomenology of social micro-behaviour pitched at the level of the longue durée.”⁹ He focuses on how everyday practices function within established systems rather than on their role in broader historical transformations.

Felski, too, reads Lefebvre closely, using his work, along with Heller and Schutz, to construct her triadic definition of everyday life.⁴⁵ She draws on his insights into cyclical temporality and the ambivalence of the everyday as both oppressive and potentially creative.⁴⁸ Yet she is also critical of some aspects of Lefebvre’s loose exposition and his tendency to leave everyday life underdefined, especially in architectural and cultural studies appropriations.⁵ Her project can be understood as an attempt to sharpen and clarify the concept of everyday life that Lefebvre and de Certeau helped to bring into focus.

Thus Lefebvre provides a shared conceptual background, but Felski and de Certeau develop different aspects of his legacy. De Certeau radicalizes the notion of everyday practices as creative, devising a grammar of tactics and strategies. Felski systematizes Lefebvre’s insights into a more precise analytic framework that can incorporate both the creative and the oppressive dimensions of daily life.

Anthropology and the Question of West-Centered Everyday Theory

Another mediating discourse is anthropology, which has increasingly taken up theories of everyday life to analyze mundane practices across cultures. Ries, for example, notes that de Certeau’s “marginal human” of everyday practice—often pictured as a Western city dweller—has become a universal figure in everyday theory, yet this figure is embedded in specifically Euro-American urban contexts.¹⁴ She calls for breaching the West-centeredness of everyday theory and highlights how illustrations of the everyday are consistently set in familiar Western locations such as “bungalows, shopping centers, and backyards.”¹⁴

Felski’s focus on home and domesticity is similarly rooted in Western histories of suburbanization, the nuclear family, and the gendered division of labor.[^1]⁵⁶ De Certeau’s walking city is likewise a modern Western metropolis. Both concepts of the everyday, then, risk universalizing experiences that are particular to certain regions and classes. Anthropological work, drawing on both Felski and de Certeau, has sought to expand the notion of the everyday to include settings marked by poverty, migration, and political violence, where daily life may be shaped as much by terror and uncertainty as by comfort and routine.¹⁴⁵

This anthropological engagement complicates the relationship between Felski’s and de Certeau’s concepts by showing their shared limitations and potentials. De Certeau’s emphasis on tactics can illuminate how people in precarious conditions creatively negotiate systems of domination, while Felski’s emphasis on repetition and home can help analyze how these systems structure everyday time and space even under duress. At the same time, attention to non-Western and marginal contexts may reveal forms of everyday life that unsettle both theorists’ implicit assumptions, prompting further refinement of their concepts.

Feminist Revisions and the Politics of the Ordinary

Feminist theory plays a particularly important role in linking Felski and de Certeau. Felski herself writes from within feminist debates about domesticity, work, and representation, arguing that everyday life has been central to women’s experience but marginal in theoretical discourse.[^1]⁵⁶ Her emphasis on home, habit, and repetition can be read as a feminist intervention that challenges masculinist emphases on public, heroic, or exceptional events.

At the same time, feminist scholars have appropriated de Certeau’s ideas to analyze how women and other marginalized groups tactically negotiate patriarchal and capitalist systems in the course of daily life. The notion that consumers are not passive but can creatively appropriate products has been used to examine women’s reading of romance novels, their participation in popular culture, and their use of domestic commodities.⁵¹ Yet Felski warns that such appropriations risk overemphasizing resistance and underemphasizing the sheer labor and fatigue of everyday domesticity, especially for women who carry the double burden of paid and unpaid work.[^1]⁵⁶

The relationship between Felski’s and de Certeau’s concepts of the everyday is therefore deeply entangled with feminist concerns. De Certeau provides tools for recognizing women’s everyday agency and the inventiveness embedded in domestic routines; Felski provides tools for recognizing the structural weight of those routines and their gendered history. Together, they can support a more nuanced feminist politics of the ordinary, one that sees everyday life as a field of both constraint and creativity, in which tactics may coexist with exhaustion and in which the value of ordinary care and maintenance must be acknowledged alongside the appeal of resistance.

Implications for Cultural Analysis and Methodology

Studying the Everyday: From Abstract Category to Empirical Practice

Combining Felski’s and de Certeau’s concepts of the everyday yields rich methodological implications for cultural studies, sociology, anthropology, and related fields. Felski’s insistence on defining everyday life through time, space, and modality provides a conceptual scaffold for empirical research. It encourages scholars to ask how routines are temporally structured, how they are spatially located and anchored, and how they are experienced through habits and affect.⁴⁵⁶ Van Tienoven and colleagues, for example, draw on Felski to explore “the stable practices of everyday life” using multi-day time-use diaries, explicitly conceptualizing everyday practices as “self-evident, self-sustaining, yet opaque structures” that require careful empirical investigation.⁹

De Certeau, meanwhile, underscores the importance of attending to what people actually do with cultural products and spaces, not just what these products and spaces are intended to do. His focus on tactics suggests methods such as ethnography, participant observation, and detailed analysis of user practices—how people read texts, navigate streets, use technologies, and repurpose objects.²³⁷ Together, Felski and de Certeau push against abstract theorizing detached from lived routines and encourage researchers to take the everyday as both a conceptual and empirical object.

Everyday Participation and Cultural Policy

Theories of the everyday have also informed contemporary research on cultural participation and policy. Ebrey’s study of “Understanding Everyday Participation,” for instance, draws explicitly on de Certeau and Felski to rethink how participation is conceptualized in cultural policy.⁵ She notes that de Certeau “controversially understands everyday life” as a field of creative tactics, while Felski articulates it in terms of time, space, and habit and notes its association with women and the working class.⁵ This combination allows her to critique policy frameworks that treat cultural participation primarily in terms of attendance at official cultural institutions (museums, theaters) and to argue instead that everyday practices—gardening, watching television, chatting in cafés—are also forms of cultural participation.

Here we see a practical implication of the relationship between Felski and de Certeau. De Certeau’s emphasis on the inventiveness of consumption highlights the cultural significance of activities that policy-makers may ignore as mere “consumption,” while Felski’s emphasis on the repetitive, home-based character of everyday life foregrounds the importance of domestic and neighborhood-based practices. Together, they support a more inclusive, less elitist understanding of culture that values ordinary activities and recognizes their role in constituting social life.[^1]⁵¹²³

Beyond Comfort: Everyday Life Between Comfort and Terror

Anthropological and sociological work drawing on these theorists also complicates the association of the everyday with comfort and routine, emphasizing that everyday life can encompass experiences of insecurity, terror, and conflict. Ries, for example, describes an anthropology of the everyday “from comfort to terror,” showing how daily life in post-Soviet Russia involves navigating unpredictable economic and political conditions.¹⁴ Everyday practices in such contexts may be oriented less toward micro-resistance against consumer capitalism and more toward survival, improvisation in the face of scarcity, and managing fear.

De Certeau’s concept of tactics can be extended to these settings, where users must constantly “make do” not only with commodified cultural products but also with unstable infrastructures, unreliable institutions, and violent threats.¹³¹² However, the celebratory tone sometimes attached to tactics in affluent contexts becomes problematic when tactics involve, for instance, managing chronic insecurity or evading state violence. Felski’s emphasis on the ambivalence of everyday life—its capacity to comfort and to bore, to support and to trap—can help temper overly romantic notions of everyday creativity and remind us that routine itself can be precarious and fragile in many parts of the world.[^1]⁴⁵

Toward an Integrated Concept of the Everyday

Everyday Life as Structured Repetition Inhabited by Tactics

Bringing together Felski’s and de Certeau’s concepts suggests an integrated picture of everyday life as a structured field of repetitive time, domestic and urban spaces, and habitual modalities, inhabited by inventive tactical practices that appropriate and inflect those structures. Everyday life, in this integrated view, is neither pure routine nor pure resistance. It is a texture of rhythms and habits through which people sustain themselves and others, within which they sometimes find small opportunities for improvisation, play, and contestation.

Felski gives us the language to describe the scaffolding of everyday life: the diurnal cycles that organize work and rest, the spatial anchors of home and neighborhood, and the habitual ways of acting and feeling that make the world familiar.[^1]⁴⁵⁶ De Certeau gives us the language to describe how people move within this scaffolding: the tactics through which they navigate, appropriate, and occasionally subvert the spaces and systems that structure their days.¹²³⁷ The relationship between their concepts can thus be understood as one between frame and figure, stage and performance. Neither is sufficient alone; together they provide a more complete account.

Ambivalence, Not Romance: Rethinking Resistance

An integrated concept of the everyday must also take seriously Felski’s warning against overly romanticizing everyday resistance. De Certeau’s tactics are politically ambivalent: they may resist, accommodate, or simply endure. They can make life more livable under oppressive conditions but do not necessarily transform those conditions. Felski’s emphasis on boredom, routine, and the “escaping” nature of the everyday reminds us that much of daily life is not experienced as resistance but as “doing time,” fulfilling obligations, and managing fatigue.[^1]⁴⁶

At the same time, an integrated approach should retain de Certeau’s insight that agency can be found in unexpected places, that consumption can be a site of creativity, and that ordinary practices matter politically even when they do not take the form of organized movements.¹²³ The point is not to choose between seeing the everyday as resistance or as domination, but to understand it as a field in which these dimensions coexist and shift, sometimes within a single practice. Watching television, for instance, may be a way to relax after exhausting work, a means of absorbing dominant ideologies, and a way of appropriating narratives for personal fantasies or community discussions—all at once.

Gender, Class, and Global Context

Finally, any integrated concept of the everyday inspired by Felski and de Certeau must remain attentive to gender, class, and global differences. Felski cautions that the everyday has been associated with women and the working class, but that this association is historically specific and risks obscuring other everyday experiences.[^1]⁵⁶ De Certeau’s city-strolling bricoleur and Felski’s suburban housewife are not universal figures; they emerge from particular Western histories of urbanization and domesticity.¹⁴⁵

Integrating their concepts therefore requires decentering these figures and asking how repetition, home, habit, tactics, and strategies play out in diverse contexts: in informal settlements, refugee camps, gig economies, extended family compounds, or digital environments. It also requires asking who benefits from certain everyday routines and who bears their costs, who has room for tactical improvisation and who is tightly constrained. Felski’s structural emphasis and de Certeau’s focus on micro-practices can together support such inquiries, provided they are supplemented by empirical research and critical attention to race, class, gender, and colonial histories.

Conclusion

The relationship between Rita Felski’s and Michel de Certeau’s concepts of the everyday is best characterized as a productive tension between two complementary, partially overlapping perspectives on ordinary life. De Certeau’s Practice of Everyday Life has been central to the contemporary “invention” of the everyday as an object of cultural theory, foregrounding the inventive tactics of ordinary users who appropriate and refunction the products and spaces organized by institutional strategies.¹²³ His concept of the everyday highlights practice, creativity, and micro-resistance in domains once seen as passive consumption, revealing a “network of antidiscipline” that quietly unsettles modern systems.³⁷¹¹

Felski, in “The Invention of Everyday Life,” acknowledges the importance of this shift but argues that everyday life must also be understood in terms of its temporal, spatial, and modal structures: the repetition of daily rhythms, the anchoring of routines in home, and the modality of habit that makes the world familiar and opaque at once.[^1]⁴⁵⁶ Her concept of the everyday emphasizes ambivalence: everyday life is democratic and ubiquitous, the unavoidable basis of all action, yet it is also characterized by boredom, constraint, and the weight of obligation.[^1]⁴⁸ She cautions against romanticizing the everyday as a privileged site of resistance and insists that we also attend to its complicity in reproducing social hierarchies and its emotional textures of fatigue and comfort.

The two concepts intersect in their shared challenge to elitist and pessimistic traditions that either ignore or denigrate ordinary life, and in their shared claim that the everyday is both shaped by larger structures and constitutive of them.[^1]⁵⁸¹²³ They diverge in their emphases: Felski defines everyday life as a category structured by time, space, and habit, with particular attention to domesticity and gender; de Certeau avoids definition, focusing instead on urban and cultural practices and on the tactical creativity of users. Their political imaginaries also differ, with de Certeau highlighting micro-resistance and Felski foregrounding ambivalence and structural constraint.

Taken together, however, their concepts offer a powerful framework for understanding everyday life as structured repetition inhabited by inventive tactics. Felski gives us the grammar of everyday temporality, spatiality, and modality; de Certeau gives us the syntax of everyday practice and appropriation. An integrated approach that draws on both can support nuanced analyses of how people live through, cope with, and sometimes subtly rework the routines and structures that shape their days, without losing sight of either the weight of habit or the flicker of invention. In this sense, the relationship between Felski’s and de Certeau’s concepts of the everyday is not simply one of agreement or disagreement, but of mutual illumination, each helping to reveal dimensions of ordinary life that the other risks overshadowing, and together contributing to a richer, more critical understanding of what it means to “do time” in the quotidian. [^1] warwick.ac.uk

Footnotes

1. files.eric.ed.gov ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸ ↩¹⁹ ↩²⁰ ↩²¹ ↩²² ↩²³ ↩²⁴ ↩²⁵ ↩²⁶

2. en.wikipedia.org ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸ ↩¹⁹ ↩²⁰ ↩²¹ ↩²² ↩²³ ↩²⁴ ↩²⁵ ↩²⁶

3. transnationaleverydaylife.wordpress.com ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸ ↩¹⁹ ↩²⁰ ↩²¹ ↩²² ↩²³ ↩²⁴ ↩²⁵ ↩²⁶ ↩²⁷ ↩²⁸ ↩²⁹ ↩³⁰ ↩³¹ ↩³² ↩³³ ↩³⁴ ↩³⁵ ↩³⁶

4. readingandwalking.ca ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸ ↩¹⁹ ↩²⁰ ↩²¹ ↩²² ↩²³ ↩²⁴ ↩²⁵ ↩²⁶ ↩²⁷ ↩²⁸ ↩²⁹ ↩³⁰ ↩³¹ ↩³² ↩³³

5. www.tandfonline.com ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸ ↩¹⁹ ↩²⁰ ↩²¹ ↩²² ↩²³ ↩²⁴ ↩²⁵ ↩²⁶ ↩²⁷ ↩²⁸ ↩²⁹ ↩³⁰ ↩³¹ ↩³² ↩³³ ↩³⁴ ↩³⁵ ↩³⁶ ↩³⁷ ↩³⁸ ↩³⁹ ↩⁴⁰ ↩⁴¹ ↩⁴² ↩⁴³ ↩⁴⁴ ↩⁴⁵ ↩⁴⁶

6. www.scribd.com ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸ ↩¹⁹ ↩²⁰ ↩²¹ ↩²² ↩²³ ↩²⁴ ↩²⁵ ↩²⁶ ↩²⁷ ↩²⁸ ↩²⁹ ↩³⁰

7. www.mobilistiek.nl ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰

8. www.jstor.org ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹

9. journals.sagepub.com ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

10. www.studocu.com ↩ ↩²

11. beautifultrouble.org ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

12. www.scielo.br ↩ ↩²

13. soundenvironments.files.wordpress.com ↩ ↩²

14. journals.lwbooks.co.uk ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹²