Abstract
In this essay I attempt to compare two different methods of analyzing works of art: the documentary method of the sociologist Karl Mannheim and the phenomenological approach of Alfred Schutz. While both Mannheim and Schutz employ the concept of style, the actual meaning of their concepts of style is so different that comparing them may at first seem like a futile undertaking. I nevertheless argue that contrasting Mannheim’s and Schutz’s sociological approaches, emphasizing their unique features, offers a good strategy to map the fundamental differences between them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It should be pointed out that Mannheim’s theory influenced sociology only indirectly, through its reception by Panofsky. Bourdieu first adapted his notion of habitus from Panofsky’s Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism (Panofsky 1976 [1951]), in his book Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (Bourdieu 1984 [1979]).
- 2.
In “On multiple realities,” Schutz refers to “style of existence.” (Schutz 1962a, pp. 207, 229) Schutz’s theory is based on William James’ “Principles of Psychology.” While James describes the spheres of reality as “sub-universes,” Schutz prefers “provinces of meaning.” Schutz thereby wants to underline that the issue is not an ontological structure of objects, as “sub-universe” seems to indicate, but rather the meaning of our experience of what constitutes reality. In this way it is made clear that we deal here with constructions of meaning and not with real facts (Schutz 1962a, p. 230).
- 3.
Schutz also mentions other stylistic features of the provinces of meaning of daily life: for example, “a specific tension of consciousness, namely wide-awakeness”; “a prevalent form of spontaneity, namely working (a meaningful spontaneity based upon a project …)”; “a specific form of experiencing one’s self (the working self as the total self)”; “a specific form of sociality (the common intersubjective world of communication and of social action)”; and “a specific time-perspective (the standard time …).” (Schutz 1962a, p. 230f.)
- 4.
Along similar lines, Mannheim demonstrates in his sociology of knowledge inquiries that a competition between different styles is characteristic of modern society. He mainly analyses the competition between two important currents: between a conservative and a liberal style. And he shows how this competition takes place in different areas or provinces of meaning. In politics it is easier to locate the competition between the liberal and the conservative orientations. This competition also occurs, according to Mannheim, in science in the form of a competition between different scientific styles, and especially ideal-typically in the struggle between the natural sciences (as embodiment of a liberal way of thinking) and the human sciences (as embodiment of a conservative way of thinking). Instead of speaking of a style of science as Schutz does, Mannheim speaks of a plurality of scientific styles that can be traced back to social, economic, and cultural differences.
- 5.
It should be pointed out, however, that there are major methodological differences between the documentary interpretation of Karl Mannheim and the approach that was used by Lukács and Lowenthal in their sociologies of literature. Both are committed to a Marxist critical approach. According to such a methodological approach, the social scientist should not only analyze different Weltanschauungen in art, but at the same time show which of those Weltanschauungen allow a realistic representation of reality and which are based on false consciousness. On the argument between Critical Theory and the approach of Karl Mannheim in his sociology of knowledge see: Barboza 2009.
- 6.
This reference to Don Quixote is not present in the “Preface to the English-Language Edition” of Distinction. In the English Edition I find only one reference to Don Quixote: Bourdieu 1984, p. 109.
References
Barboza, A. 2005. Kunst und Wissen. Die Stilanalyse in der Soziologie Karl Mannheims. Konstanz: UVK.
Barboza, A. 2009. Zwei Frankfurter Soziologien: Wissenssoziologie versus Kritische Theorie? [Two Frankfurt sociology: sociology of knowledge and critical theory]. In Soziologie in Frankfurt, ed. F. Herrschaft and K. Lichtblau, 161–203. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Bätschmann, O. 1985. Logos in der Geschichte. Erwin Panofskys Ikonologie [Logos in the history. Erwin Panofsky´ iconology]. In Kategorien und Methoden der deutschen Kunstgeschichte 1900–1930, ed. L. Dittmann, 89–112. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Bohnsack, R. 1991. Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung. Einführung in Methodologie und Praxis qualitativer Forschung. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Bohnsack, R. 2009a. Qualitative Bild- und Videointerpretation. Opladen & Farmington Hills: UTB/Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Bohnsack, R. 2009b. The interpretation of pictures and the documentary method. In Counterfactual thinking as a scientific method – Kontrafaktisches Denken als wissenschaftliche Methode, Special Issue. Historical Social Research – Historische Sozialforschung, vol. 34 (2), ed. R. Wenzlhuemer, 296–321. Berlin: GESIS.
Bourdieu, P. 1982. Die feinen Unterschiede. Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Bourdieu, P. 1984 [1979]. Distinction. A social critique of the judgment of taste. Trans. R. Rice. Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1996. Photography: A middle-brow art. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gombrich, E.H. 1991. Die Krise der Kulturgeschichte. München: Ernst Klett Verlag. English edition: Gombrich, E.H. 1979. Ideal and Idols. Oxford: Press Limited.
Horkheimer, M. 1993 [1930]. A new concept of ideology? In Between philosophy and social science, ed. M. Horkheimer, 129–150. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lenk, K. 1961. Ideologiekritik und Wissenssoziologie. Neuwied: Hermann Luchterhand.
Lowenthal, L. 1986. Literature and the Image of Man. Communication in Society, 2. New Brunswick: Transaction. German edition: Löwenthal, L. 1981. Das bürgerliche Bewusstsein in der Literatur. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Lukács, G. 1994 [1920]. Die Theorie des Romans. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. English edition: Lukács, G. 1971. Theory of the novel. London: Merlin.
Mannheim, K. 1952. On the interpretation on “Weltanschauung”. In Essays on the sociology of knowledge. Collected works, volume five, ed. K. Mannheim, 33–83. Routledge. German edition: Mannheim, K. 1921–1922. Beiträge zur Theorie der Weltanschauungsinterpretation. Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, I (XV), Nr. 4, 236–274.
Mannheim, K. 1982. Structures of thinking, eds. D. Kettler, V. Meja, and N. Stehr. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. German edition: Mannheim, K. 1980. Strukturen des Denkensm, eds. D. Kettler, V. Meja, and N. Stehr. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Neusüss, A. 1968. Utopisches Bewußtsein und freischwebende Intelligenz. Zur Wissenssoziologie Karl Mannheims. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain.
Pächt, O. 1994. Kritik der Ikonologie [Critique of ideology]. In Ikonographie und Ikonologie, ed. E. Kaemmerling, 353–376. Köln: Dumont.
Panofsky, E. 1957. Meaning in the visual arts. New York: Doubleday & Company. German edition: Panofsky, E. 1978. Sinn und Deutung in der bildenden Kunst. Köln: DuMont.
Panofsky, E. 1976 [1951]. Gothic architecture and scholasticism. New York: Meridian. German edition: Panofsky, E. 1989 [1951]. Gotische Architektur und Scholastik. Zur Analogie von Kunst, Philosophie und Theologie im Mittelalter. Köln: DuMont.
Schutz, A. 1962a. On multiple realities. In Collected papers I: The problem of social reality, ed. M.A. Natanson and H.L. van Breda, 207–259. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Schutz, A. 1962b. Symbol, reality and society. In Collected papers I: The problem of social reality, ed. M.A. Natanson and H.L. van Breda, 287–356. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Schutz, A. 1964. Don Quixote and the problem of realities. In Collected papers II: Studies in social theory, ed. A. Brodersen, 135–158. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barboza, A. (2014). Sancho Panza and Don Quixote: The Documentary and the Phenomenological Methods of Analyzing Works of Art. In: Barber, M., Dreher, J. (eds) The Interrelation of Phenomenology, Social Sciences and the Arts. Contributions to Phenomenology, vol 69. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01390-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01390-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01389-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01390-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)