PHENOMENOLOGY

THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL SCHOOL At the broadest level, phenomenological sociology is that sociology which operates on the basis of philosophical phenomenology. It tries, without doing too much damage to its original sources, to apply the principles of philosophical phenomenology to sociological questions. The work of philosophers such as Husserl, as well as Henri Bergson, Franz Brentano, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, provide its ultimate source, and the work of Schultz, its closest source. Phenomenologists assign primacy to human consciousness. So its objective is the description of the universal structure of subjective orientations. Derived from this approach is the view held by phenomenological sociology that the objective features of society rest on this universal subjective base. Like phenomenological philosophy, phenomenological sociology is a science because of its rigorous, systematic, and critical attempt to uncover the basic realities of social life. Phenomenological school reflects the philosophy of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), whose main work, Ideas on Pure Phenomenology, appeared in 1913. The sociological manifestation of Husserl’s position was inaugurated by Theodor Litt, whose principal theoretical contribution is Individual and Society (1919). According to Litt, phenomenology is applicable to those phenomena of a psychic nature, which are so constituted that a structure, or inner arrangement, is perceivable in a single cognitive experience of the observer and points the way to analysis. This is the case of the phenomena studied by the social sciences. In this respect, Litt’s approach resembles that of Max Weber. The best-known work in sociology along these lines is the theory of Alfred Vierkandt (1867-1952). Vierkandt was born in Hamburg, studied in Leipzig under the psychologist Wundt, and published his work, Natural and Cultural Peoples, in 1895. For Vierkandt, the task of sociology is defined as the sum total of human interaction- a conception reminiscent of Simmel’s theory, which Vierkandt quotes. Two of the most frequently discussed and debated theories in contemporary sociological theory are phenomenological sociology and ethnomethodology. The two theories often are discussed together. George Ritzer (1975a) sees them as two theoretical components of the social definition paradigm: Monica Morris (1977) sees them as two varieties of what she calls” creative sociology”; Jack Douglas (1980) and Andrew Weigert (1981) include them under the heading of the “sociologies of every day life” and Richard Hil­bert (1986) sees them as varieties of ‘social constructionism’. However there are persua­sive reasons why the two theories should not be discussed together. We first deal with phenomenological sociology is the older of the two theories and provided some of the roots for the development of ethnomethodology. Later we discuss some of the main as­pects of ethnomethodology as a sociological theory. Contemporary practitioners of both phenomenological sociology and ethnomethodology trace their intellectual roots to the philosophical work of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938). Many of his ideas are the inspiration for a number of contemporary aspects phenomenol­ogical sociology. More important, they were the major inspiration for the work of Alfred Schutz. Schutz took Husserl’s philosophy and transformed it into sociology and it is that orientation that lies at the base of both phenomenological sociology and ethnomethodol­ogy. Contemporary phenomenological sociology is traceable directly to the work of Schutz. In ethnomethodology, studied with Schutz, and it is Garfinkel’s (and his sup­porters) adaptation of Schutz’s ideas that is a major basis of ethnomethodology. The Two theories have a similar set of interests in the social world. Both theories focus on social definitions – how actors come to define social situations and to act on the basis of those definitions (Ritzer, 1975a). Both are creative sociologies, that is (Morris, 1977) actors are not seen as passive receptacles but as active creators of the social scene. In ad­dition, phenomenology and ethnomethodology both have a micro focus on the sociology of every day life, that is, on highly commonplace thoughts and actions (Douglas, 1980). Social definitions, creativity, and a micro focus are not the only substantive elements the two theories have in common, but they illustrate their overlapping concerns. In spite of these and other similarities, many adherents of both theories seem to agree that there are differences between the two and that it is best to keep them separate. For exam­ple, James Heap and Philip Roth (1973) argued that ethnomethodology involves a com­bination of phenomenology and elements of sociology that has produced a unique and independent domain of study. Similarly. Don Zimmerman contended that despite their common intellectual heritage, the two theories are not equivalent. “Strictly speaking, the term ‘phenomenological’ is inappropriate as a blanket characterization of the working tools, methods and problems of ethnomethodology, it for no other reason than that it blurs the distinction between heritage and intellectual content” (1978:8). Although phenome­nology, both philosophical and sociological, has included ethnomethodology, ethnometh­odology also has been shaped by linguistics, anthropology, and even mainstream sociol­ogy. Ethnomethodology has blended phenomenology with these other sources to produce a theoretical orientation that is not reducible to phenomenology. One key area of difference between the two theories is methodology. Those who practice phenomenological sociology tend to remain true to their philosophical roots and to write conceptual pieces and do thought experiments (Freeman. 1980). Phenomenological soci­ology has spawned comparatively little empirical research that is, few experiments, sur­vey, or observational studies. Some see this is inherent in phenomenological sociology, but others see it as a stage in the development of the theory. Ethnomethodology, however, has been highly empirical and has produced many more empirical works than theoretical or philosophical treaties. Examples include studies of telephone conversations, maps, newspaper reports, courtroom procedures, political speeches, and even walking. In these studies, ethnomethodologists have generally used methods not too different from those used in mainstream sociological research. They also have developed some distinctive methodologies. One of the best known is the so-called breaching experiment developed by Garfinkel as a way of demonstrating basic ethnomethodological principles. The basic procedure is for the researcher to enter a so­cial setting, violate (or breach) the rules that govern it, and then study how people deal with the breach. Among other things, the ethnomethodologists hopes to study the way people construct, or reconstruct, social reality. Another rather distinctive methodology is detailed analysis of audio and videotapes. Ethnomethodologists are very interested to conversational analysis, and they have used audiotapes to good advantage. Videotapes have proven useful in the analysis of such behaviours as walking, face-to-face communi­cation and interaction in various settings. Phenomenological sociologists have a great concern for consciousness. One of the most difficult problems in the history of all of sociology has been how to study consciousness empirically. Like other theorists, phenomenologists have not been able to solve this problem adequately. As a result, their best work lies in their efforts to philosophise, theo­rize, or reflect on the operation of consciousness and meaning construction. Schutz was interested in consciousness but as it is constrained by the larger culture with its language, typifications, and recipes. This orientation most influenced those phenome­nological sociologists who tend to emphasize the constraining effects of cultural phe­nomena on consciousness. Although they recognize that actors are creative, they empha­size the forces that shape and constrain that creativity. Plato saw, every science (except philosophy) must proceed upon some assumptions. The phenomenological approach must bring us an absolutely presuppositionless science. Pure phenomenology, or phenomenological philosophy, is in Husserl’s opinion, precisely that.(it has long been the aspiration of philosophers to make their science an absolute one, one that rids itself of all presuppositions and stands with open countenance before pure being. Husserl stands in this tradition). Its beginnings can be detected in earlier periods of the discipline’s development, but only in the third quarter of this century has it become a major theoretical and methodological school of thought gathering prominent and numer­ous followers and making grand efforts to contribute to the science