Heap1973
| Heap1973 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Heap1973 |
| Author(s) | James L. Heap, Phillip A. Roth |
| Title | On Phenomenological Sociology |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, phenomenological sociology |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1973 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | American Sociological Review |
| Volume | 38 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 354–367 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The works of Tiryakian, Bruyn and Douglas are examined as representative of "phenomenological sociology." Radical problems are discovered in their use of key concepts in phenomenology: intention, reduction, phenomenon and essence. These problems are shown to arise out of a failure to grasp the nature of the phenomenological enterprise and its relationship to sociology. Turning back to the original formulation of this relationship by Husserl, we discover problems of transcendental intersubjectivity, of type and essence, and of objectivism. We then point out the existence of sociologies which do not share the shortcomings of what is called phenomenological sociology, yet which make use of the perspective and approach of phenomenology. We then focus on one of these sociologies, ethnomethodology in its relation to phenomenology. We find parallels in their methodology and domains of inquiry, and divergency in their approaches to intersubjectivity.
Notes
