Poleva N.S. COVID-19. Some aspects of everyday life’s frustration
Natalia S. Poleva, Ph.D (Psychology), Psychological Institute of Russian Academy of Education, Moscow, Russia; bld. 9–4, Mokhovaya str., Russia, Moscow, 125009; firstname.lastname@example.org
This article represents the analysis of the impact caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic on the daily life routine as well as the existing world environment. The lack of physical space in everyday life naturally became a trigger for digital identity creation and general life digitalisation. The process was accompanied by additional intensity brought by the transition in the main areas of a person’s daily life to the online mode. While being in self-isolation, a person is physically detached from others. Fortunately, with the development of the internet and digital technologies, it became possible for the individual to stay connected with others and the whole globe. The total uncertainty during the period of lockdown and self-isolation significantly narrows, or in other words, “disintegrates” the usual ability to make plans. Such uncertainty contributes to the development of anxiety and neuroticism, the growth of individual and group precariousness. The changes that are brought by the pandemic lead not only to the breaking, however, also to the destruction of the grid of coordinates in the usual picture of the world. As a result, it creates certain psychological issues for a person in self-isolation. The transformation brought by the pandemic on daily life is accompanied by a violation of the usual lifestyle chronotype, cardinal changes in the routine, the construction of a new style or way of life as a whole, which in the long run is intended to become the new normal. Changes and transformation of everyday life are associated with the processes of re-forming and re-structuring the daily activities. Adaptation and self-development strategies are emerging as possible coping mechanisms for daily frustration. The emotional experience of the breakdown of usual routine creates the need and possibility of altering and creating a new way of life, constructing one’s subjective-personal harmonious combination of space and time in the psychological chronotype. Such experiences contribute to the formation of new ideas about life and solid self-images for the new everyday life.
Key words: frustration of everyday life, chronotope of everyday life, digital everyday life, picture of the world
For citation: Poleva, N.S. (2021). COVID-19. Some aspects of everyday life’s frustration. New Psychological Research, No. 2, pp. 84–99, DOI: 10.51217/npsyresearch_2021_01_02_05
The study was supported by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research, project 20-013-00075\20 «Person in everyday life: psychological phenomenology and determinates».
Baudrillard, J. (2001). The spirit of terrorism. Telos: Telos Press.
Camus, A. (1996). Favorites. Moscow: Progress.
Chamayou, G. (2020). The theory of the drone. Moscow: Ad Marginem.
Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in Sociological Fieldwork. Social Forces, 36, 217–223.
Guseltseva, M.S. (2019). Psychology of everyday life in the light of the methodology of latent changes. Moscow: Akropol’.
Kapkan, M.V. (2016). Culture of everyday life. Yekaterinburg: Izd-vo Ural. un-ta.
Leleko, V.D. (2002). The space of everyday life in European culture. St. Petersburg: S.-Peterb. gos. un-t kul’tury i iskusstv.
Lotman, Yu.M. (1992). Notes on the art space. In Selected articles. In 3 vol. Articles on semiotics and typology of culture (Vol. 1. pp. 457–463). Tallin: Aleksandra.
Martsinkovskaya, T.D. (2016). Culture and subculture in the space of the psychological chronotope. Moscow: Smysl.
Martsinkovskaya, T.D. (2017). Psychology of everyday life: an oxymoron or a new trend in psychology. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya, 10(56), 1. Retrieved from http://psystudy.ru http://psystudy.ru/index.php/num/2017v10n56/1497-martsinkovskaya56.html
Martsinkovskaya, T.D. (2019). Man in everyday life: individual, individuality, personality. In N.V. Grishina (Ed.), Personality Psychology: Being in Change (pp. 304–330). St. Petersburg: Izd-vo S.-Peterb. un-ta.
Museum of Facts. Why did one artist give the opportunity to shoot himself with a paintball gun over the Internet? (2020). Retrieved from http://muzey-factov.ru/6137
Novikova, N.L. (2004). Culture of everyday life. Theoretical aspect. Saransk: Krasnyi Oktyabr’.
Schütz, А. (2003). The semantic structure of the everyday world. Essays on phenomenological sociology. Moscow: Institut Fonda «Obshchestvennoe mnenie».
Shapiro, J. (2020). Transatlantic relations and the coronavirus. Rossiya v global’noi politike. Retrieved from https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/transatlantica-i-koronavirus/
Shulman, E.M. (2020, May 21). The world will remain as it was in a number of key parameters: a long interview with Ekaterina Shulman. On the consequences of the biggest crisis of the XXI century. N1Zhuranal. Retrieved from https://journal.n1.ru/articles/mir-kakim-byl-takim-po-ryadu-klyuchevykh-parametrov-i-ostanetsya-bolshoe-intervyu-s-ekaterinoi-shulman/
Vakhshtain, V.S. (2020, April 25). Art from Home, or Mass Artistic Practices in an Age of Isolation. The Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts, National Center for Contemporary Art (Arsenal). Online conversation within the framework of the festival of texts about art “Vasari. New? Art history ?!”. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOBSpQSz-aE
Waldenfels, B. (1991). Еveryday life as a melting pot of rationality. In Socio-Logos (Vol. 1. pp. 39–50). Moscow: Progress.
keywords: фрустрация повседневности, хронотоп повседневности, цифровая повседневность, картина мира frustration of everyday life, chronotope of everyday life, digital everyday life, picture of the world
received 22 June 2021
published 22 June 2021