Luckmann’s clear-cut differentiation between phenomenology and sociology is instructive and methodologically useful, insofar as it reduces the extreme complexity implied in the relationship between both research fields. However, just like every other schematic conceptual distinction, this one also has its disadvantages: if not nuanced properly, it can lead to dangerous theoretical imprecisions. By means of constructive criticism, in what follows I will attempt to refine some of the shortcomings of the Luckmannian account. My argument, which is informed by contemporary approaches in sociological theory and phenomenology, will center around three important issues: (1) Luckmann’s account of sociology, (2) his conception of phenomenology, and (3) his (in)sensitiveness with respect to the limits of the phenomenological reductions.
Sociological Theory, Social Theory, and Theory of Society
In some of the passages in which Luckmann (see, for instance,
1979: 196, 200) deals with the relationship between sociology and phenomenology, he uses the concept of “sociology” in a somewhat inaccurate manner—for instance, when he claims that there is no such thing as a “phenomenological sociology” (
1979: 196). For, as every sociologist knows, the word “sociology” on its own is too unspecific. Arguably, it could mean at least three different things:
qualitative empirical sociology,
quantitative empirical sociology or
sociological theory.
As said above, an exhaustive analysis of Luckmann’s writings shows that he tends to equate sociology
in toto with Weberian
Verstehende Soziologie, that is, with a qualitative strain of empirical social research. If this is what he means by the term “sociology” in his programmatic writings, then his claim that a “phenomenological sociology” is a “conceptual contradiction” (Luckmann
1979: 196) can be simply understood as a criticism of Psathas’s (
1973,
1989) attempt to use phenomenology as an empirical method. Interpreted this way, Luckmann’s statement seems plausible and well-founded.
Now, what is Luckmann’s take on sociological theory? Is it for him also sociology? Or, put differently, does Luckmann’s claim as to the impossibility of an empirical phenomenological sociology also hold for a theoretical phenomenological sociology? In my view, Luckmann does not provide clear answers to these questions.
It is easy to prove that sociological theory, i.e., the theoretical tradition whose founding fathers are Weber, Durkheim, Marx, and Simmel (see Kottmann et al.
2007), plays a pivotal role in Luckmann’s thought. And this especially in light of his most popular book,
The Social Construction of Reality, which he and his co-author characterize as a work on systematic “sociological theory” (Berger and Luckmann
1966: 18). Surprisingly enough, however, in his programmatic writings Luckmann (see, for instance,
1979;
2008) does not even mention the latter term: he only refers to empirical social research and phenomenological proto-sociology.
Indeed, in these texts proto-sociology seems to take on one of the traditional functions of sociological theory, namely, that of conceptually defining the “field” of the social. Now, what is exactly the relationship between the phenomenological, or proto-sociological, enterprise and the sociological-theoretical one? Can proto-sociology be understood as a sociological theory? Or is the idea of a “phenomenological sociological theory” also an absurdity?
In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to work with a thorough definition of the term “sociological theory,” which, unfortunately, is not to be found in Luckmann. In the last few years, especially in the German-speaking world, one observes a series of attempts to offer such a definition by means of introducing an interesting conceptual distinction, namely, that between
social theory [
Sozialtheorie] and
theory of society [
Gesellschaftstheorie] (see, for instance, Reckwitz
2016: 7f.). According to authors such as Andreas Reckwitz (
2016: 7f.), sociological theory deals, since its origins, with two parallel problems that can and must be differentiated, namely, with
social-theoretical [
sozialtheoretisch] issues and
societal-theoretical [
gesellschaftstheoretisch] ones.
On the one hand, sociological theory
qua social theory intends to conceptually define the fundamental features of the subject matter of sociology, namely, social reality, i.e., its necessary, transhistorical, and transcultural proprieties. In other words, social theory aims at defining
what is sociality in terms of a social ontology, and this by developing a “fundamental vocabulary” of basal concepts for describing and analyzing social phenomena (Reckwitz
2016: 7). By contrast, sociological theory
qua theory of society attempts to analyze the structure, historical development, and contemporary situation of
modern societies or
Gesellschaften, that is, of the capitalistic, industrial, rationalized, urbanized, democratic, and individualistic social formations that started emerging in Europe in the nineteenth century (Reckwitz
2016: 8).
Arguably, against the background of this distinction, Luckmann’s proto-sociology can be understood as a
phenomenological social theory, for it seeks to offer a meta-language able to grasp the basal structures of social reality (see Schnettler
2008: 142).
22 Interestingly enough, however, in
The Social Construction of Reality Luckmann and Berger (
1966: 20. My emphasis) do not consider the phenomenological reflections included in the first chapter of the book as a constituent part of their sociological theory but, rather, as “
pre-sociological” or “
philosophical prolegomena”. In this view, phenomenology is not a social-theoretical account per se but
precedes social theory as its philosophical foundation.
Now, how does Luckmann conceive of sociological theory? “The central question for sociological theory,” one reads in
The Social Construction of Reality, “can then be put as follows: How is it possible that subjective meanings
become objective facticities? How is it possible that human activity (
Handeln) should produce a world of things (
choses)?” (Berger and Luckmann
1966: 18). According to Luckmann and Berger, this question can only be answered by a synthetic approach that combines Weber’s subject-centered account with Durkheim’s object-centered one, and this with the help of the young Marx’s dialectical conception of social reality (
1966: 185f.).
Curiously enough, however, in his programmatic writings dealing with the relation between sociology and phenomenology, Luckmann (see, for instance,
2002a [1990]: 51) appears to contradict the division of labor between phenomenological proto- or “pre-sociology” (Berger and Luckmann,
1966: 20) and sociological theory presented in
The Social Construction of Reality. In articles such as “
Lebenswelt: Modebegriff oder Forschungsprogramm?,” he seems to suggest that the above-mentioned “fundamental problem” of sociological theory can only be tackled through a
philosophical-phenomenological “foundation” of the social sciences (Luckmann
2002a [1990]: 51). As he writes, only phenomenological analysis is able “to clarify the relationship between the universal structures of subjective orientation, the fundamental forms of intersubjective action, and the objective features of historical social reality” (
2002a [1990]: 51).
From this follows that Luckmann acknowledges phenomenology’s contributions to social theory. However, he does not specify the nature of such contributions, and this because he does not accurately define the boundaries between phenomenological proto-sociology and social theory stricto sensu. Does the former provide a philosophical foundation for the latter, as it is suggested in The Social Construction of Reality? Or is phenomenological proto-sociology already a social theory, as one can deduce from Luckmann’s programmatic writings?
Following Reckwitz (
2016: 8), I would like to argue that Luckmann’s lack of precision when it comes to specifying the boundaries between (phenomenological) philosophy and social theoretical thought is not an exclusive flaw of his work. Rather, it reflects the inseparable bond that exists between both intellectual enterprises. Indeed, it is hard to say when philosophy ends and social theory begins, for the questions dealt with by the former, namely, the nature of human existence, human knowledge, social relationships, language, etc., also play a key role in the latter.
23
Transcendental or Pragmatic-Anthropological Phenomenology?
Arguably, Luckmann is also ambiguous when it comes to defining his understanding of phenomenology. He seems to oscillate between an orthodox account of phenomenological philosophy, which reminds one of Husserl’s static transcendental approach in
Ideen I (see Belvedere
2013: 10), and a pragmatic, philosophical-anthropological, and social-theoretically oriented account decisively inspired by Schutz. While the former seems to be prevalent in the programmatic texts analyzed above, the latter can be found in his concrete analyses of the structures of the lifeworld and in some papers from the 1990s (see, for instance, Luckmann
2002a [1990]).
Luckmann’s portrait of phenomenology in programmatic writings such as “Phänomenologie und Soziologie” (
1979) and “Konstitution, Konstruktion: Phänomenologie, Sozialwissenschaft” (2008) seems to reproduce, to some degree, the solipsistic, idealist, and cognitivist features of Husserl’s early conception of transcendental phenomenology (Belvedere
2013: 10; see Hua III). In these writings, Luckmann (
1979: 196f.; see
2008: 33ff.) characterizes phenomenology exclusively as a purely egological philosophy that intends to work out the “universal structures of consciousness” by means of an exhaustive reflection upon the “inner stream of experience”. On this account, phenomenological research aims at describing the way in which the lifeworld “constitutes” itself in, and through, the cognitive-intentional “conscious activities” of the ego (Luckmann
2008: 33ff.). “Reality,” writes Luckmann in a Husserlian vein, “constitutes itself in conscious activities that intentionally grasp something outside consciousness itself” (34).
It seems to me that the solipsistic and mentalist connotations of this account are paradigmatically reflected in Luckmann’s dichotomy between phenomenological “constitution” and sociological “construction”. While he uses the term “construction” to denote those social processes in which human beings practically produce a socio-cultural world through corporeal-material (inter)actions (Luckmann
2008: 35;
2007b [2001]: 140), he tends to characterize “constitution” as a mere cognitive process of sense-giving occurring, as it were, within the pure interiority of a disembodied egological mind (Luckmann
2008: 34;
2007b [2001]: 140).
Arguably, as a result of this clear-cut conceptual distinction, it arises, against Luckmann’s own intentions, a one-sided picture of phenomenology as an outdated, Cartesian approach. And this, in turn, can create the impression that it has nothing whatsoever to offer sociology. Many contemporary authors rightly argue against such unilateral definitions of phenomenological philosophy, which seem to be prevalent in the contemporary social sciences (see, for instance, Belvedere
2011). As Dan Zahavi has recently written:
By offering an account of human existence, where the subject is understood as an embodied and socially and culturally embedded being-in-the-world, phenomenology is not only able to analyse and illuminate a framework that is operative and taken for granted by most scientific disciplines, it has also been able to offer inputs to a variety of disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, literary studies, education studies, etc. (Zahavi
2018: 103f.)
Indeed, Luckmann’s definition of phenomenology in his programmatic texts seems to disregard that the most prominent representatives of this philosophical tradition, Heidegger (
2006 [1927]), Merleau-Ponty (
1945), Schutz (
1962b [1945]), and even Husserl in his later writings (see Zahavi
2003: 98ff.), do not conceive of the constitution of the lifeworld as a purely cognitive activity taking place within the interiority of subjective mind but, rather, as an embodied and socio-culturally embedded process. That is to say, that the boundaries between “construction” and “constitution” are not as sharp as Luckmann sometimes depicts them.
Luckmann’s “orthodox” account of phenomenology becomes also manifest in his claim that phenomenological research necessarily operates with the method of transcendental
epoché. In line with the Husserlian account of transcendental phenomenology, he claims that phenomenology can never be “naively realist” (Luckmann
1979: 197;
2007b [2001]: 140f.). It must suspend reality’s “ontological claims,” so to speak, for only that way is it possible to render visible how reality constitutes itself in our cognitive conscious acts (Luckmann
2008: 33).
In my view, this way of depicting phenomenology collides with Luckmann’s own
concrete analyses of the structures of the lifeworld, which, as is well-known, follow Schutz’s (see
1991 [1932]: 55ff.) “constitutive phenomenology of the natural attitude,” and not Husserlian transcendental phenomenology (see, for instance, Luckmann
1992).
24 Indeed, in his concrete phenomenological descriptions he portraits the human constitution of reality as an essentially embodied, socio-culturally embedded, and pragmatically shaped process. Concerning the corporeal nature of human action, for instance, he writes: “To be sure, the body is presupposed in every human action and in every experience, also in those actions that, as such, are not necessarily embodied” (Luckmann
2002b [1982]: 98).
In the 1973 paper “Philosophy, Sciences, and Everyday Life,” Luckmann (
1983a [1973]: 21) clearly distances himself from the Husserlian transcendental approach. More precisely, he criticizes transcendental phenomenology’s “illusory quest for absolute and total certainty” and objects to the metaphysical idea of a “first philosophy” as “supreme ‘discipline of disciplines’” (Luckmann
1983a [1973]: 21f.). In a Schutzian vein, he suggests that one can pursue Husserl’s (Hua VI: § 36) program of an eidetic science of the lifeworld, as presented in
Krisis, without accepting transcendental phenomenology (Luckmann
1983a [1973]: 21f., 28).
In his 1990 article “
Lebenswelt: Modebegriff oder Forschungsprogramm?,” in turn, Luckmann admits again that he does not practice Husserlian transcendental phenomenology but, rather, Schutzian
mundane phenomenology (Luckmann
2002a [1990]: 51; see also
1993). In line with his teacher, Luckmann claims that his phenomenological proto-sociology does not aim at offering a “dogmatic-definitive ultimate foundation” for philosophical knowledge but, rather, a “philosophical foundation” for sociology
qua “empirical science” (
2002a [1990]: 50f.). As he writes, the “Schutzian turn” of phenomenology has helped to reveal the “important function” of this discipline for the social sciences (
2002a [1990]: 50).
When characterizing the specificities of the Schutzian approach, Luckmann follows Ilja Srubar’s (
2007) pragmatic and philosophical-anthropological reading of Schutz’s work
. Srubar (
2007: 173ff.) rightly emphasizes that Schutz progressively distances himself from Husserl’s transcendental approach to phenomenology, and this because of its –alleged– metaphysical, idealist, and solipsistic features. On this reading, as opposed to his teacher, Schutz develops a phenomenology of the natural attitude which aims to be an “ontology of the lifeworld” (176). This approach, says Srubar, implies not only a
philosophical-anthropological and
pragmatic “turn” of phenomenology but also its “
sociologization” (18. My emphasis).
Interestingly enough, Srubar (
2007: 18, 68) does not operate with Luckmann’s dichotomy between sociological construction and phenomenological constitution. Rather, he opts for using the term “social constitution” [
soziale Konstitution] in a broad sense to designate
all the processes and mechanisms through which the lifeworld obtains its “meaning-structure” and “-order” (
2007: 23, 91). Against this background, he argues that both Husserl and Schutz provide theories of social constitution, although they differ as to their respective definitions of the “lifeworldly constitution processes,” and this, ultimately, because they pursue different theoretical aims (
2007: 18, 68).
From an “epistemological” and “metaphysically” connoted perspective, suggests Srubar (
2007: 17f., 117), Husserl assumes that the meaning structure of the lifeworld ultimately constitutes itself in the cognitive activities of an absolute transcendental consciousness.
25 By contrast, arguing from an “ontological” and “sociologically” oriented perspective, Schutz understands the constitution of the lifeworld as a
pragmatic, embodied, and intersubjective process taking place in everyday socio-cultural praxis (18f., 68, 188).
More precisely, according to Srubar (
2007: 17, 68, 189f., 198), Husserl posits the internal stream of consciousness of the transcendental ego as the primary “location” [
Ort] of the constitution process of the lifeworld, while Schutz conceives the face-to-face intersubjective interaction, the so-called “
Wirkensbeziehung,” as the “primal cell” [
Urzelle] of social reality. In Srubar’s reading, however, Schutz’s claim of the ontological primacy of intersubjectivity over subjectivity does not imply reducing egological consciousness to a mere epiphenomenon of sociality. Just like in Husserl, in Schutz subjective “perspectivity” and “meaning-giving” also play a crucial role in the constitution of reality (Srubar
2007: 181, 191).
As Srubar (
2007: 23, 191) claims, for Schutz the lifeworld obtains its “meaning-structure” from two co-originary [
gleichursprünglich] “constitutive poles,” namely, an
intersubjective, or
social, and a
subjective, or
egological, one (see Eberle,
1993: 304). As a result of intersubjective interaction, it emerges a socio-cultural world with an own “relevance and typicality structure,” i.e., a substantive, objective reality that not only transcends the interacting subjects and their respective intentions but also is imposed upon them (Srubar
2007: 23, 191). In turn, the egological constitutive pole of Schutz’s theory of the lifeworld consists in the perspective “appropriation” and “modification” of that imposed social reality performed by each individual within the frame of her personal “biography” (Srubar
2007: 23).
Explicitly following Srubar’s reading, Luckmann (
2002a [1990]: 49f.;
1993) speaks in some of his writings from the 1990s of a “Schutzian turn” in phenomenology. Schutz, he says, distances himself from Husserl’s transcendental approach and develops a “phenomenology of the lifeworld” which is “pragmatically-anthropologically founded” (Luckmann
2002a [1990]: 50). But this is not all. Although he uses a different terminology, Luckmann also seems to accept Srubar’s claim that Schutz’s theory of the lifeworld possesses two constitutive poles: a subjective and an intersubjective one (
2002a [1990]: 49f.). As he writes, “in the analysis of the ‘meaningful construction [
Aufbau] of the social world’, one has to reconstruct both the constitution of
meaning [
Sinn] in subjective conscious activities […] and the
construction [
Aufbau] of reality performed in social action” (
2002a [1990]: 50).
In his own work, Luckmann accepts and takes the Schutzian anthropological turn of phenomenology further (Soeffner
1999: 36). Indeed, he argues that the eidetic structures of the lifeworld are anthropological invariants, i.e., fundamental aspects of the “
conditio humana” (Luckmann in Dreher and Göttlich
2016: 33), and, based on this assumption, develops a phenomenologically
and philosophical-anthropologically founded proto-sociology that complements Husserl’s and Schutz’s reflections with anthropological insights from the young Marx, Helmuth Plessner, and Arnold Gehlen (Berger and Luckmann
1966: 17; see Schnettler
2006: 69, 90).
The Limits of the Phenomenological Reductions
Arguably, some of Luckmann’s programmatic formulations convey the impression that he overestimates the powers of the phenomenological reductions. He seems to depict them as infallible methodological devices that allow us to completely detach ourselves from all biographical, cultural, and historical prejudices, as it were, thereby enabling us to see the “things themselves,” i.e., the universal structures of the lifeworld,
sub specie aeternitatis (see Eberle
2012b: 144; Göttlich
2008: 103ff.)
. Understood this way, phenomenology would make it possible to develop a foolproof proto-sociological, or social theoretical, language able to overcome all contingent biases and sources of error when it comes to defining the general and fundamental concepts of sociology.
As Luckmann (for instance,
1979: 198;
2008: 38;
1983b [1970]: 41) writes on many occasions, through the application of both the
epoché and the eidetic variation, it is possible to reduce a particular, concrete social phenomenon to its most elementary features, i.e., to those invariant structures of intentionality without which such kind of experience or action would be unthinkable. On this account, with the help of the phenomenological reductions one is able to strictly differentiate the “fundamental strata” of experience from its secondary –biographical, socio-cultural, and historical– constituent elements, which are necessarily based on the former (Luckmann
2007b [2001]: 141).
Now, in line with Eberle (
2012b: 144;
2021b; forthcoming), and arguing from a post-metaphysically (see Habermas
1988: 36ff.) and hermeneutically informed perspective that emphasizes the phenomenologist’s finitude and her insurmountable “belonging-to” the lifeworld she reflects upon (see Ricouer
1975), one can ask: Is it truly possible to separate so neatly the factual from the essential moments of a concrete experience? Can a phenomenologist completely detach herself from her particular situation and observe the universal structures of the lifeworld from the perspective of the eternal? Is it really viable to consider
all the possible variations of experience only by means of an egological reflection? Or does a really exhaustive eidetic variation require us to resort to the results of empirical social research?
26
In some passages of his work, Luckmann acknowledges, at least
en passant, the insurmountable limitations of phenomenological reflection, suggesting that the reductions are far from being infallible. Concerning the problem of language, he claims in a 1991 paper that phenomenological analysis only brackets “
as best as possible” the theoretical and pre-theoretical prejudices of common-sense thinking, which means that the phenomenological proto-language always retains some “traces” of the contingent historical languages (Luckmann
1991: 157. My emphasis). And in another article from 1970, he admits that
it is extraordinarily difficult to separate the “pure” qualities, appearing in the primordial sphere of the transcendental ego, from the culturally determined categories which are first acquired by the empirical ego in social processes and then recede into “secondary passivity” and thus guide its habitual experiences. (Luckmann
1983b [1970]: 46)
In Luckmann, however, one does not find a systematic reflection on the insurmountable limitations of the reductions when it comes to separating historical-cultural facticity from the (transcendental-)eidetic realm. In this respect, arguably, Schutz (
1970 [1959]: 115) goes further than his disciple when he asks himself, in a 1959 paper, if the eidetic variation can ever surpass the limits of the typifications that organize the contingent common-sense experience of the phenomenologist. It is certainly Merleau-Ponty (
2010 [1951–1952]), however, who most thoroughly deals with this problem, especially in his course “
Les sciences de l’homme et la phénoménologie”. In the following, I will attempt to apply Merleau-Ponty’s insights on this matter to a critical discussion of Luckmann’s position.
Merleau-Ponty (
2010 [1951–1952]: 1211ff.) develops his own account of the scope and limits of the phenomenological reductions in an
indirect manner, namely, through an exegesis of Husserl’s work. More precisely, he criticizes (1) a “dogmatic” conception of the reductive methods that disregards their fallibility and limitations, and defends instead (2) a more modest account that takes their insurmountable historical and cultural embeddedness seriously. The first position, claims Merleau-Ponty, is to be found in the “first” Husserl, while the second can be identified in his later work (
2010 [1951–1952]: 1211ff.). Arguably, Luckmann’s programmatic formulations regarding the relation between phenomenology and sociology rest on an account of the reductions of the first type (1). In this sense, I think Merleau-Ponty’s defense of the second kind of approach (2) can serve as a corrective for the Luckmannian position.
(1) The first account, which, according to Merleau-Ponty (
2010 [1951–1952]: 1211, 1213), is endorsed by Husserl in texts such as
Ideen I, starts from the premise that, by means of the
epoché and the eidetic variation, one is able to detach herself completely from one’s socio-historical situation, thereby being able to observe the universal structures of the lifeworld from an Archimedean point. In this view, for instance, performing the reduction enables the phenomenologist to entirely transcend the limitations of her mother tongue and thus to analyze, from a completely unbiased vantage point, the invariant “essence of language” in terms of a “universal grammar” (
2010 [1951–1952]: 1245f.).
As Merleau-Ponty (
2010 [1951–1952]: 1222) rightly suggests, this conception of the reductive methods goes hand in hand with a dogmatic account of the phenomenological “essences,” which tends to underestimate the relevance of both concrete socio-historical facticity and the social scientific efforts to study it. On this account, phenomenologists deal with the “essential,” i.e., with the necessary and invariant structures of social reality, while social scientists only occupy themselves with factual “details” that are nothing but empirical substantiations thereof (
2010 [1951–1952]: 1231). To use Husserl’s (Hua III: §§ 7, 8, 9) terms in
Ideen I, the “factual” social sciences
qua “
Tatsachenwissenschaften,” i.e., empirical sociology, anthropology, linguistics, etc., are always subordinated to the dominance of the “eidetic sciences” [
eidetische Wissenschaften] (Merleau-Ponty
2010 [1951–1952]: 1222f., 1230). If one follows this view, phenomenology defines a priori the “fundamental concepts” of the empirical social sciences, while the latter limit themselves to collecting factual “curiosities” and to making sense of them in light of those eidetic categories (
2010 [1951–1952]: 1231).
(2) By contrast, the second account of the reductions, which Merleau-Ponty (
2010 [1951–1952]: 1257) identifies in Husserl’s later writings, acknowledges the inevitable naivety and fallibility of the phenomenological method. In this view, a phenomenological reflection is not “radical” when it overcomes historicity and facticity once and for all. In fact, such a thing is not possible. Rather, a radical reflection is one that accepts as a starting point its insurmountable embeddedness in a historical situation, which is always already lived unreflectively: “radical reflection amounts to a consciousness of its own dependence [
dépendance] on an unreflective life which is its initial situation, unchanging, given once and for all” (Merleau-Ponty
2002 [1945]: xvi;
1945; ix).
On this account, the
epoché is far from being an infallible method which succeeds at completely bracketing our historically determined prejudices and cognitive biases, thereby allowing us to “come back” to the primal transparence of the transcendental sphere (Merleau-Ponty
2002 [1945]: x;
1945: v). Rather, it constitutes an “
infinite” task, i.e., an imperfect and never completed “effort” to take some distance from our factual, unreflective situation in order to “contemplate” it, articulate it, and thus make it understandable (Merleau-Ponty
2010 [1951–1952]: 1211). In other words, doing away with our embeddedness in a concrete socio-historical lifeworld by means of phenomenological reflection is simply not an option: “The most important lesson which the reduction teaches us is the impossibility of a complete reduction” (Merleau-Ponty
2002 [1945]: xv;
1945: ix).
Something similar holds for the eidetic reduction. Merleau-Ponty (
2010 [1951–1952]: 1246, 1255, 1263f.) criticizes the platonic-sounding position of the “first” Husserl and defends a more modest understanding of this method, which he finds in the work of the later Husserl. On this latter account, he says, the intuition of essences or
Wesensschau is not an “end in itself” but, rather, a modest methodological “means” to conceptually fix, so to speak, the fundamental features of our lived experience (Merleau-Ponty
2002, XVIf.;
1945: VIIIf.). And far from providing us with an apodictic knowledge of the essential structures of reality, it always entails a “certain degree of naivety,” which follows from the insurmountable historical and cultural limitedness of human thinking (Merleau-Ponty
2010 [1951–1952]: 1264).
If one takes the socio-historical limitations and biases of cognition seriously, then it seems absurd to claim that one can consider
all possibilities of experience by means of a methodical reflection. Indeed, if the scope of our cogitations is always already narrowed because of our embeddedness in a particular situation, then we are not able to ponder
all the possible variations of a phenomenon in a single act of eidetic variation. Take, for instance, a phenomenologist who looks back on a
Wesensschau she performed twenty years ago: she may find out that the range of her imaginary variation was restricted by the stock of knowledge socially prevalent back then and, therefore, that she was not really in presence of the essence of things themselves (see Merleau-Ponty
2010 [1951–1952]: 1263).