Advertisement

Human Studies

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 623–641 | Cite as

A Theory of Affective Communication: On the Phenomenological Foundations of Perspective Taking

  • Christian JulmiEmail author
Theoretical/Philosophical Paper

Abstract

Although some scholars acknowledge the decisive role of the felt body in the process of perspective taking, the precise role of the felt body remains unclear. In this paper, a theory of affective communication is developed in order to explain and understand the process of perspective taking in human interaction on a corporeal, pre-reflective and thus affective level. The key assumption of the outlined theory is that any process of perspective taking is essentially based on the two dimensions of the felt body, namely (1) attraction and repulsion, (2) dominance and subdominance. The dimension of attraction and repulsion determines whether individuals (or groups) attractively converge or repulsively diverge in their perspectives. Regarding the dimension of dominance and subdominance, it is assumed that there is always a dominant and a subdominant side in human interaction. In the case of attraction as a necessary condition for finding common ground, the dominant side serves as the perspective giver and the subdominant side serves as the perspective taker. The outlined theory is phenomenologically based on the works of Schmitz and Rappe and marks a contribution to the research program of neophenomenological sociology.

Keywords

Affect Perspective taking Corporeal communication Hermann Schmitz Guido Rappe Neophenomenological sociology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

  1. Ahmed, S. (2010). Happy objects. In M. Gregg & G. J. Seigworth (Eds.), The affect theory reader (pp. 29–51). London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imagining how another feels versus imaging how you would feel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(7), 751–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blume, A. (2010). Hermann Schmitz (1928–). In H. R. Sepp & L. Embree (Eds.), Handbook of phenomenological aesthetics (pp. 307–309). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brennan, T. (2004). The transmission of affect. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Breuer, F., Muckel, P., & Dieris, B. (2018). Reflexive Grounded Theory: Eine Einführung für die Forschungspraxis (3rd ed.). Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, R. (1981). On the microfoundations of macrosociology. American Journal of Sociology, 86(5), 984–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 713–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Jaegher, H., Pieper, B., Clénin, D., & Fuchs, T. (2017). Grasping intersubjectivity: An invitation to embody social interaction research. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 491–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). Is there an in-group advantage in emotion recognition? Psychological Bulletin, 128(2), 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Epley, N., Keysar, B., van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1985). The history of sexuality: Volume 2: The use of pleasure. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Frijda, N. H., Mesquita, B., Sonnemans, J., & van Goozen, S. (1991). The duration of affective phenomena or emotions, sentiments and passions. In K. T. Strongman (Ed.), International review of studies on emotion (Vol. 1, pp. 187–225). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Fuchs, T. (2013). The phenomenology and development of social perspectives. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 655–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuchs, T. (2017). Levels of empathy: Primary, extended, and reiterated empathy. In V. Lux & S. Weigel (Eds.), Empathy. Epistemic problems and cultural-historical perspectives of a cross-disciplinary concept (pp. 27–47). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Fuchs, T., & de Jaegher, H. (2009). Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gallagher, S. (2008). Direct perception in the intersubjective context. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Georgesen, J. C., & Harris, M. J. (1998). Why‘s my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 184–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  24. Griffero, T. (2014). Atmospheres: Aesthetics of emotional space. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  25. Griffero, T. (2017). Felt-bodily communication: A neophenomenological approach to embodied affects. Studi di estetica, 8(2), 71–86.Google Scholar
  26. Großheim, M., Kluck, S., & Nörenberg, H. (2015). Kollektive Lebensgefühle. Zur Phänomenologie von Gemeinschaften. Rostock: Universität Rostock, Institut für Philosophie.Google Scholar
  27. Gugutzer, R. (2017). Felt body and situation. To the theory and research program of the neophenomenological sociology. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 46(3), 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gzyl, S. (2010). Unentbehrliche Begegnungen. Bochum: Projektverlag.Google Scholar
  29. Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don‘t). Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Harding, N., Lee, H., Ford, J., & Learmonth, M. (2011). Leadership and charisma: A desire that cannot speak its name? Human Relations, 64(7), 927–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  32. House, R. J., & Singh, J. V. (1987). Organizational behavior: Some new directions for I/O psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 669–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iedema, R., & Carroll, K. (2015). Research as affect-sphere: Towards spherogenics. Emotion Review, 7(1), 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Julmi, C. (2015). Atmosphären in Organisationen: Wie Gefühle das Zusammenleben in Organisationen beherrschen. Bochum: Projektverlag.Google Scholar
  35. Julmi, C. (2017). Situations and atmospheres in organizations: A (new) phenomenology of being-in-the-organization. Milan: Mimesis International.Google Scholar
  36. Julmi, C., & Rappe, G. (2018). Atmosphärische Führung: Stimmungen wahrnehmen und gezielt beeinflussen. Munich: Hanser Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Julmi, C., & Scherm, E. (2015). The domain-specificity of creativity: Insights from new phenomenology. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kazig, R. (2016). Presentation of Hermann Schmitz’ paper, “Atmospheric Spaces”. Ambiances. International Journal of Sensory Environment, Architecture and Urban Space. Retrieved from http://ambiances.revues.org/709. Accessed 16 Nov 2018.
  39. Ku, G., Wang, C. S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The promise and perversity of perspective-taking in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindemann, G. (2014). Weltzugänge: Die mehrdimensionale Ordnung des Sozialen. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  41. Litchfield, R. C., & Gentry, R. J. (2010). Perspective-taking as an organizational capability. Strategic Organization, 8(3), 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maibom, H. L. (2013). Limits of perspective taking. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 511–516.Google Scholar
  43. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McPherson Frantz, C., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (2000). Considering both sides: The limits of perspective taking. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(1), 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge. (Original work published 1945).Google Scholar
  47. Morris, D. (1977). Manwatching: A field guide to human behavior. New York: H. N. Abrams.Google Scholar
  48. Müller-Pelzer, W. (2011). Intercultural competence: A phenomenological approach. In A. Witte & T. Harden (Eds.), Intercultural competence. Concepts, challenges, evaluations (pp. 55–74). Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  49. Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  50. Parker, S. K., Atkins, P. W. B., & Axtell, C. M. (2008). Building better workplaces through individual perspective taking: A fresh look at a fundamental human process. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 149–196). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Rappe, G. (2005). Interkulturelle Ethik, Bd. II: Ethische Anthropologie, 1. Teil: Der Leib als Fundament von Ethik. Berlin: Europäischer Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  52. Rappe, G. (2006). Interkulturelle Ethik, Bd. II: Ethische Anthropologie, 2. Teil: Personale Ethik. Berlin: Europäischer Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  53. Rappe, G. (2012). Leib und Subjekt. Phänomenologische Beiträge zu einem erweiterten Menschenbild. Bochum: Projektverlag.Google Scholar
  54. Rappe, G. (2018). Einführung in die moderne Phänomenologie: Phänomen/Leib/Subjektivität. Bochum: Projektverlag.Google Scholar
  55. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmitz, H. (1965). System der Philosophie, Bd. II: Der Leib, 1. Teil: Der Leib. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag.Google Scholar
  57. Schmitz, H. (1969). System der Philosophie, Bd. III: Der Raum, 2. Teil: Der Gefühlsraum. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag.Google Scholar
  58. Schmitz, H. (1977). System der Philosophie, Bd. III: Der Raum, 4. Teil: Das Göttliche und der Raum. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag.Google Scholar
  59. Schmitz, H. (1978). System der Philosophie, Bd. III: Der Raum, 5. Teil: Die Wahrnehmung. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag.Google Scholar
  60. Schmitz, H. (1980). System der Philosophie, Bd. V: Die Aufhebung der Gegenwart. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag.Google Scholar
  61. Schmitz, H. (1993). Sind Tiere Bewußthaber?: Über die Quelle der Du-Evidenz. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 46(3), 329–347.Google Scholar
  62. Schmitz, H. (2003). Was ist Neue Phänomenologie?. Rostock: Koch.Google Scholar
  63. Schmitz, H. (2009). Kurze Einführung in die Neue Phänomenologie. Munich: Karl Alber.Google Scholar
  64. Schmitz, H. (2010). Jenseits des Naturalismus. Freiburg: Karl Alber.Google Scholar
  65. Schmitz, H., & Brenner, A. (2009). Die Neue Phänomenologie: Ein Gespräch mit Hermann Schmitz. Information Philosophie, 37(5), 20–29.Google Scholar
  66. Schmitz, H., Müllan, R. O., & Slaby, J. (2011). Emotions outside the box: The new phenomenology of feeling and corporeality. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Slaby, J., Mühlhoff, R., & Wüschner, P. (2017). Affective arrangements. Emotion Review.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917722214.Google Scholar
  68. Tanaka, S. (2015). Intercorporeality as a theory of social cognition. Theory & Psychology, 25(4), 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vachhani, S. J. (2013). (Re)creating objects from the past: Affect, tactility and everyday creativity. Management & Organizational History, 8(1), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Waytz, A. (2016). The limits of empathy. Harvard Business Review, 94(1–2), 68–73.Google Scholar
  71. Weber, M. (1980). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (5th ed.). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. (Original work published 1921).Google Scholar
  72. Zahavi, D. (2011). Empathy and direct social perception: A phenomenological proposal. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(3), 541–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insb. Organisation und Planung, Fakultät für WirtschaftswissenschaftFernUniversität in HagenHagenGermany

Personalised recommendations