Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Further reflections on the notion of multiple realities

Schultz on page 13 writes,

"In order to free this important insight from its psychologistic setting we
prefer to speak instead of many sub-universes of reality of finite
provinces of meaning upon each of which we may bestow the accent of
reality. We speak of provinces of meaning and not of sub-universes because
it is the meaning of our experiences and not the ontological structure of
the objects which constitutes reality.*[18]* Hence we call a certain set of
our experiences a finite province of meaning if all of them show a specific
cognitive style and are - with respect to this style - not only consistent
in themselves but also compatible with one another. The italicized
restriction is important because inconsistencies and incompatibilities of
some experiences, all of them partaking of the same cognitive style, do not
necessarily entail the withdrawal of the accent of reality from the
respective province of meaning as a whole but merely the invalidation of
the particular experience or experiences within that province. What,
however, has to be understood under the terms “specific cognitive style”
and “accent of reality”? As an example let us consider again the world of
everyday life as it was defined and analyzed in the preceding chapter. This
world is certainly a “sub-universe” or “finite province of meaning” among
many others, although one marked out as ultimate or paramount reality for
the reasons mentioned in the last section. If. we recapitulate the basic
characteristics which constitute its specific cognitive style we find (1) a
specific tension of consciousness, namely wide-awakeness, originating in
full attention to life; (2) a specific epoché, namely suspension of doubt;
(3) a prevalent form of spontaneity, namely working (a meaningful
spontaneity based upon a project and characterized by the intention to
bring about the projected state of affairs by bodily movements gearing into
the outer world); (4) a specific form of experiencing one’s self (the
working self as the total self); (5) a specific form of sociality (the
common intersubjective world of communication and social action); (6) a
specific time-perspective (the standard time originating in an intersection
between *durée* and cosmic time as the universal temporal structure of the
intersubjective world). These are at least some of the features of the
cognitive style belonging to this particular province of meaning. As long
as our experiences of this world - the valid as well as the invalidated
ones - partake of this style we may consider this province of meaning as
real, we may bestow upon it the accent of reality. And with respect to the
paramount reality of everyday life we, with the natural attitude, are
induced to do so because our practical experiences prove the unity and
congruity of the world of working as valid and the hypothesis of its
reality as irrefutable. Even more, this reality seems to us to be the
natural one, and we are not ready to abandon our attitude toward it without
having experienced a specific shock which compels us to break through the
limits of this “finite” province of meaning and to shift the accent of
reality to another one.


Scultz is exploring SPECIFIC cognitive styles with their own provinces of
meaning and stating there are multiple different  cognitive styles.
Wittgenstain, calls these specific cognitive styles particular types of
"language games" and his project was to describe the particular structure
[grammar]behind each of these various language games . Wittgenstein
elaborated the specific grammars articulating particular language games
[cognitive styles as language games]

Gadamer uses the term *play* to explore these multiple types of cognitive
styles or language games.  What Gadamer adds to this topic or theme is the
flowing permeability of the boundaries of the various cognitive styles or
language games.  Each particular cognitive style can be explored as a
particular type of hermeneutical conversation and the structure or form of
the particular style elaborated. Gadamer's project is to ask a further
question, How do these various styles, forms, structures, *fuse*
[metaphorically] into expanding horizons of understanding?  Schultz
emphasizes the disjunction that may result when anticipated experiences are
disrupted whereas Gadamer emphasizes the encounter with the other and
mis-understandings in conversations [dialogue] leading to disjunctions.
When the other's *answer* or *response* disrupts the conversation  this
disruption invites an opening in BOTH horizons of understanding and through
ongoing hermeneutical conversation, *unveiling* of the particular cognitve
styles or language games leads to further expansion of *our* horizons.

Larry


On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike
>
> You wrote,
>
>
>  from this perspective, meaning is retrospectively
> constructed. That idea seems entirely consistent with joint-mediated
> activity as a unit of analysis for lots of the phenomena we discuss
>
> The queston that comes to mind is, Do  we grant the backward glance the
> royal road *to* meaning?
> Where do we locate the *dialogical* notion of mediation that posits
> meaning as located *in* the answering of the other?  Until our playful
> encounter *in* the conversation [conversation as having its own living
> experience or being] is answered meaning continues in transition to
> becoming. This notion of meaning points more to the centrality of
> *translation* within the dance rather than locating meaning in the
> completed actuality of our anticipated projection, as determinative.  At
> least within the conversation I'm having with myself.
>
> Mike, as Martin is expressing, what is the relation BETWEEN *the backward
> glance* as completing the arc AND the *answering of the other* as the
> completion of the arc?
>
> Are these alternative ways of *forming* meaning? The backward glance as a
> particular TYPE of consciousness and the *answering other* as another
> TYPE?  The centrality of the permeable relational boundary between inner
> and outer and the reciprocity and movement back and forth between these
> forms of meaning?  Or does one type subsume the other?
>
> Both point to *joint mediation* but one seems to privilege *cognition* as
> located in subjectivity [MY backward glance] while the other form of
> mediation seems to privilege the *play* as having its own being *in* which
> *we* [not *I*] participate.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 9:32 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> To me what stands out is the fact that from this perspective, meaning is
>> retrospectively
>> constructed. That idea seems entirely consistent with joint-mediated
>> activity as a unit
>> of analysis for lots of the phenomena we discuss, teaching/learning
>> processes for example.
>> I am not so sure about the "reflective attitude" part being necessary.
>> mike
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > 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
>> > article.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Larry
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> > 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
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca