[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz

On page 4 of  the article on multiple realities Schultz writes,

it makes us - in our language - either live within our present experiences,
directed toward their objects, or turn back in a reflective attitude to our
past experiences and ask for their meaning.*[7]*

In the same spirit as Martin was reflecting on the *relation between*
realization and instantiation [*play* in Gadamer's language] the either/or
language in the above quote [directed toward objects OR turning back] may
be interpreted *as*  a reciprocal hermeneutical relation of continuous
moving back and forth and interpenetrating with more permeable boundaries
and more dynamic flow [in other words *fusing* of the horizons of  present
experiences and reflective attitude]

As I understand Gadamer, he would suggest Schultz is operating from a
particular prejudice-structure of  understanding reflective conduct
[subject-object reflection] whereas Gadamer is pointing to an alternative
form of what he terms *effective* reflection.  I acknowledge I may have be
*mis*-understanding Gadamer, and what I'm suggesting is tentative, but I am
hearing a particular type of reflection being articulated as I read the


On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andy, Mike, Martin
> Thanks for this lead.  I have been reading Gadamer's response to Habermas
> and the interplay between his notion of *traditions* and Habermas notion of
> *emancipation* within social theory.
> The two chapter's of Martin's book will help further the conversations on
> these themes.
> Martin, your conversation with David on the interplay of realization and
> instantiation and the centrality of the *relation between* these concepts
> seems central to this discussion.
> I also wonder about the interplay between realization and reflection and
> Gadamer's notion of multiple TYPES of reflection. Assertive reflection,
> thematic reflection, and what Gadamer names as  *effective reflection*
> where one engages with developing the skills to enter and participate
> effectively in playing the games without holding back and *merely* playing
> at playing the game.  Effective playing as having its *own* being and *we*
> enter this play and get *taken up* and *carried* along within the play. Not
> privleging either *subjective* consciousness or *objective* consciousness
> but rather privileging the play in which subjectivity and objectivity have
> their *ground* [metaphorically]
> Martin, I'm not sure if this was the direction you were taking
> theconversation, but it what I interpreted you saying.
> Larry
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Andy et al -
>> Martin's book, the science of qualitative research has a chapter that
>> traces Kant-Husserl-
>> Schutz - BergerLuckman that we r reading at Lchc. It helped me a lot to
>> sort out this branch
>> of thought. It is followed by a chapter that traces Heidegger - Merleau
>> Ponty- garfinkle.
>> I have heard there is an electronic version, but do not know how to get
>> it. Working from actual hard copy!
>> Mike
>>  On Apr 28, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Andrew Babson <ababson@umich.edu> wrote:
>> > He was very influential to Garfinkel, and so from an intellectual
>> > historical perspective, the development of ethnomethodology,
>> > conversation analysis and modern sociolinguistics.
>> >
>> > On 4/28/12, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>> >> I'd just like to share the attached article, written in 1945 by Alfred
>> >> Schuetz, a refugee from the Frankfurt School living in New York, like
>> so
>> >> many others. In the article he appropriates Wm James, GH Mead and J
>> >> Dewey, whilst coming from the Pheneomenology of Husserl, to adapt the
>> >> concepts of Pheneomenology to social theory. It is quite interesting.
>> He
>> >> remains, in my view within the orbit of Phenomenology, but readers will
>> >> recognise significant points of agreement with AN Leontyev's Activity
>> >> Theory. What he calls "Conduct" comes close to "Activity," and he
>> >> introduces the concept of Action which is certainly the same as it is
>> >> for CHAT, and instead of "an activity" (the 3rd level in ANL's system)
>> >> he has "Project." But although this project has the same relation to
>> >> Action, it is a subjectively derived project posited on the world,
>> >> rather than project discovered in the world, and having a basically
>> >> societal origin. This is the point at which I think he confines himself
>> >> to Phenomenology, and fails to reach a real social theory. The whole
>> >> business about "multiple realities" which gives the article its title
>> is
>> >> very tedious, but actually is valid in its basics I think.
>> >> Some of us on this list may appreciate him. He's a recent discovery
>> for me.
>> >> Andy
>> >> --
>> >>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> *Andy Blunden*
>> >> Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
>> >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>> >> Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1608461459/
>> >>
>> > __________________________________________
>> > _____
>> > xmca mailing list
>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
xmca mailing list