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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    This apparent shortcoming is also recognized by STS scholars who explore human–computer interactions (HCI) from a performative perspective. As Jan Rod and Denisa Kera observe, the “interpretations of Husserl’s and Heidegger’s phenomenology in HCI take almost exclusively the subject (user) as the point of departure for further thinking about the interaction”. Consequently, they argue, “[w]e need to rethink this starting point in order to approach the design of large techno-social systems that are more complex in this respect” (Rod and Kera 2010: 73).

  2. 2.

    There are also those who push a ‘Object Oriented Ontology’ (OOO) in an explicit attempt to avoid subject-centeredness (e.g., Harman 2011). Proponents of OOO seek to embrace a flat ontology by dismissing consciousness studies (Morton 2011). Specifically, they do so by focusing on “objects in-themselves”. As Thomas Lemke (2017) shows, however, this move entails a tacit commitment to subjectivism.

  3. 3.

    A similar assumption grounds Alfred Schutz’s social phenomenology which presents an in-depth analysis of the connection between the classical phenomenological notion of lifeworld and socio-cultural reality (Costelloe 1996). Schutz showcases how the concept of ‘lifeworld,’ which is used by many classical phenomenologists (Kockelmans 1986), is compatible with sociological concepts.

  4. 4.

    Here I find it useful to draw on Goffman for the following two reasons: First, Knorr Cetina’s criticism of Goffman’s restricted focus on the locally situated is analogous to the criticism that proponents of the performative idiom in STS could direct at classical phenomenology. Second, Knorr Cetina uses this criticism to explore global interactions. By limiting her focus to social ontologies, however, she abstains from clarifying the experiential basis of such interactions.

  5. 5.

    According to Hubert Dreyfus, Heidegger takes “the real danger” of machine-powered technology to be that technology has imposed “a restriction in our way of thinking” and, specifically, our understanding of being (Dreyfus 1995: 55). Consequently, humans need to break free of modern technology. That said, however, Dreyfus does not discuss whether Heideggerian phenomenology provides useful concepts for exploring human-nonhuman relations that are constitutive of STS-style practical ontologies.

  6. 6.

    Some scholars including Robert Scharff would disagree. Scharff argues that Heidegger’s view on technology is neither abstract nor dystopian (Scharff 2010: 106). Nevertheless, he recognizes that “Heidegger does not share the happy, unreflective complacency that usually accompanies the developed-world idea” (2010). Thus, Scharff seems to tacitly agree that questions relating to the constitution of global practices fall outside of Heidegger’s scope.

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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rasmus Gahrn-Andersen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gahrn-Andersen, R. Heideggerian Phenomenology, Practical Ontologies and the Link Between Experience and Practices. Hum Stud 42, 565–580 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-019-09493-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Heideggerian phenomenology
  • Practical ontologies
  • De-distancing
  • Local–global