Advertisement

Heideggerian Phenomenology, Practical Ontologies and the Link Between Experience and Practices

  • Rasmus Gahrn-AndersenEmail author
Theoretical/Philosophical Paper
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

Postphenomenologists and performativists criticize classical approaches to phenomenology for isolating human subjects from their socio-material relations. The purpose of this essay is to repudiate their criticism by presenting a nuanced account of phenomenology thus making it evident that phenomenological theories have the potential for meshing with the performative idiom of contemporary science and technology studies (STS). However, phenomenology retains an apparent shortcoming in that its proponents typically focus on human–nonhuman relations that arise in localized contexts. For this reason, it seems to contrast with one of the core assumptions behind practical ontologies: that socio-practical significance extends beyond an agent’s immediate situatedness in a localized context. Turning to Heidegger’s phenomenology and his notion of ‘de-distancing’, the essay explores how localized phenomena that pertain to human experience connect with global practices (i.e., socio-material assemblages and networks) and, thus, the possibility of consilience between phenomenological research and present-day STS.

Keywords

Heideggerian phenomenology Practical ontologies De-distancing Local–global 

Notes

References

  1. Achterhuis, H. (2001). American philosophy and technology: The empirical turn. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, S. (2007). Introduction to post-phenomenology. Thesis Eleven, 90(1), 3–5.Google Scholar
  3. Arnason, J. P. (1993). Merleau-Ponty and Max Weber: An unfinished dialogue. Thesis Eleven, 36(1), 82–98.Google Scholar
  4. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bear, C. (2013). Assembling the sea: Materiality, movement and regulatory practices in the Cardigan Bay Scallop Fishery. Cultural Geographies, 20(1), 21–41.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bullington, J. (2013). The expression of the psychosomatic body from a phenomenological perspective. Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6498-9_2.Google Scholar
  8. Cetina, K. K. (2009). The synthetic situation: Interactionism for a global world. Symbolic Interaction, 32(1), 61–87.Google Scholar
  9. Costelloe, T. M. (1996). Between the subject and sociology: Alfred Schutz’s phenomenology of the life-world. Human Studies, 19(3), 247–266.Google Scholar
  10. Cussins, A. (2003). Content, conceptual content, and nonceptual content. In Y. H. Gunther (Ed.), Essays on nonceptual content (pp. 133–164). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2009). A thousand plateaus. London, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  12. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2010). Anti-Oedipus. London, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  13. Desroches, D. (2003). Phenomenology, science studies, and the question of being. Configurations, 11(3), 383–416.Google Scholar
  14. Dreyfus, H. L. (1995). Heidegger on gaining a free relation to technology. In A. Feenburg & A. Hannay (Eds.), Technology and the politics of knowledge (pp. 25–32). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dreyfus, H. L., & Wrathall, M. (2005). Heidegger: An introduction to his thought. In H. L. Dreyfus & M. A. Wrathall (Eds.), A companion to Heidegger (pp. 1–16). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Fortun, M., & Bernstein, H. J. (1998). Muddling through: Pursuing science and truths in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.Google Scholar
  17. Gad, C., Jensen, C. B., & Winthereik, B. R. (2015). Practical ontology: Worlds in STS and anthropology. NatureCulture, 3, 67–86.Google Scholar
  18. Gahrn-Andersen, R. (2017). Beyond Latour and Heidegger or: how to avoid conceptual gaps when clarifying human sociality. RASK - International journal of language and communication, 46, 3–18.Google Scholar
  19. Gahrn-Andersen, R. (2019). But language too is material! Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18(1), 169–183.Google Scholar
  20. Gibbs, P. (2011). Heidegger’s contribution to the understanding of work-based studies. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Goffmann, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  22. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Harman, G. (2011). The quadruple object. Ropley: Zero Books.Google Scholar
  24. Haugeland, J. (1982). Heidegger on being a person. Noûs, 16(1), 15–26.Google Scholar
  25. Haugeland, J. (1989). Dasein’s disclosedness. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 28(S1), 51–73.Google Scholar
  26. Heidegger, M. (1995). The fundamental concepts of metaphysics: World, finitude, solitude. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Heidegger, M. (2006). Discourse on Thinking. In M. Stassen (Ed.), Martin Heidegger: Philosophical and political writings (pp. 87–96). London, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  28. Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and time. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  29. Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Husserl, E. (2001). Logical investigations (Vol. 2). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Ihde, D. (1993). Postphenomenology: Essays in the postmodern context. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Ihde, D. (2009). Postphenomenology and technoscience: The Peking University lectures. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jensen, C. B. (2004). A nonhumanist disposition: On performativity, practical ontology, and intervention. Configurations, 12(2), 229–261.Google Scholar
  34. Jensen, C. B. (2016). Pipe dreams: Sewage infrastructure and activity trails in Phnom Penh. Ethos, 82(4), 627–647.Google Scholar
  35. Kockelmans, J. (1986). Phenomenological conceptions of the life world. Analecta Husserliana, 20, 339–355.Google Scholar
  36. Latour, B. (1996a). On actor-network theory. A few clarifications plus more than a few complications. http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-67%20ACTOR-NETWORK.pdf.
  37. Latour, B. (1996b). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228–245.Google Scholar
  38. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B. (2004). The politics of nature: How to bring sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Law, J., & Callon, M. (1992). The life and death of an aircraft: A network analysis of technical change. In J. Law & W. Bijker (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 228–239). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lemke, T. (2017). Materialism without matter: The recurrence of subjectivism in object-oriented ontology. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 133–152.Google Scholar
  43. Morton, T. (2011). Here comes everything: The promise of object-oriented ontology. Qui Parle, 19(2), 163–190.Google Scholar
  44. Müller, M. (2015). Assemblages and actor-networks: Rethinking socio-material power, politics and space. Geography Compass, 9(1), 27–41.Google Scholar
  45. Nail, T. (2017). What is an assemblage? SubStance, 46(1), 21–37.Google Scholar
  46. Okrent, M. (1988). Heidegger’s pragmatism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Okrent, M. (2013). Heidegger’s pragmatism redux. In A. Malachowski (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to pragmatism (pp. 124–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Overgaard, S. (2004). Husserl and Heidegger on being in the world. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Pickering, A. (1994). After representation: Science studies in the performative idiom. In: PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association-volume two: Symposia and invited papers (pp. 413–419).Google Scholar
  50. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Pickering, A. (2017). The ontological turn: Taking different worlds seriously. Social Analysis, 61(2), 134–150.Google Scholar
  52. Protevi, J. (2009). Political affect: Connecting the social and the somatic. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  53. Riis, S. (2008). The symmetry between Bruno Latour and Martin Heidegger: The technique of turning a police officer into a speed bump. Social Studies of Science, 38(2), 285–301.Google Scholar
  54. Rod, J., & Kera, D. (2010). From agency and subjectivity to animism: Phenomenological and Science Technology Studies (STS) approach to design of large techno-social systems. Digital Creativity, 21(1), 70–76.Google Scholar
  55. Rorty, R. (2005). Heidegger, contingency, and pragmatism. In H. L. Dreyfus & M. A. Wrathall (Eds.), A companion to Heidegger (pp. 511–532). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  56. Sartre, J.-P. (2010). Being and nothingness. London, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Sayes, E. (2014). Actor-network theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? Social Studies of Science, 44(1), 134–149.Google Scholar
  58. Scharff, R. C. (2010). Technoscience studies after Heidegger? Not yet. Philosophy Today, 54(s), 106–114.Google Scholar
  59. Sloterdijk, P. (2012). Nearness and Da-sein: The spatiality of being and time. Theory, Culture and Society, 29(4–5), 36–42.Google Scholar
  60. Stengers, I. (2005). Introductory notes on an ecology of practices. Cultural Studies Review, 11(1), 184–196.Google Scholar
  61. Thomson, I. (2009). Heidegger on ontotheology: Technology and the politics of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern DenmarkSlagelseDenmark

Personalised recommendations