Liberman2009
| Liberman2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Liberman2009 |
| Author(s) | Kenneth Liberman |
| Title | The itinerary of intersubjectivity in social phenomenological research |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Intersubjectivity, Phenomenology, Ethnomethodology, Husserl, Garfinkel |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Schutzian Research |
| Volume | 1 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 149–164 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.7761/SR.1.149 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The struggles that Alfred Schutz, Aron Gurwitsch, Harold Garfinkel, and other social phenomenologists and ethnomethodologists have had with Edmund Husserl’s progenitive but inconsistent notion of intersubjectivity are summarized and assessed. In particular, an account of Schutz’s objections to intersubjective constitution is presented. The commonly pervading elements and major differences within this lineage of inquiry – a four generation-long lineage of teacher and student that commences with Husserl, runs through Schutz and Gurwitsch, then Garfinkel, and then the present author and his colleagues – are discussed, under the advisory (as suggested by Maurice Natanson) that what Husserl sought was more important than what he found.
Notes
