Phenomenological sociology was founded at the beginning of 1930s by Alfred Schutz. His mundane phenomenology sought to combine impulses drawn from Husserl's transcendental phenomenology and Weber's action theory. It was made famous at the turn of 1960s and 1970s by Garfinkel's ethnomethodology and Berger & Luckmann's social constructionism. This paper deals with the notable accomplishments of Schutz and his followers and then proceeds to a shared shortcoming, which is that the phenomenological approach is unable to understand meaning in any other (...) way but as actors's knowledge. Therefore, phenomenological sociologists are forced to describe the actor's interpretations of meaning as transparent to the actor him/herself, even if they sometimes make heroic attempts to escape the limitations of the phenomenological conception. The limitation is apparent in Husserl's and Schutz's definition of meaning as a “reflective intentional act”, Garfinkel's use of the term “accounting” to refer to a signifying effect, and the way Berger and Luckmann describe their social theory as “sociology of knowledge”. Today, similar confusions are present in Michael Polanyi's “tacit knowledge”and in Giddens' structuration theory. (shrink)

This examination of the often-inaccessible work and semiotics of George Herbert Mead focuses first on his pivotal ideas of Sociality, Consciousness, and Communication. Mead’s insight of sociality as forced relatedness, or forced semiosis, appearing early in evolution, or appearing in simple systems, guarantees him a foundational place among biosemioticians. These ideas are Mead’s exemplar description of multiple referentiality afforded to social organisms (connected to his idea of the generalized other), thus enabling passing from one umwelt to another, with relative ease. (...) Although Mead’s comprehensive semiosis is basically sound, and in concordance with modern and contemporary semiotics (and biosemiotics), it nevertheless lacks a satisfactory explanation of how conscious organisms achieve passing into new frames of reference. Semiotic Matrix Theory (SMT), its pansemiosis, describes falsifiable existential and cognitive heuristics of recognizing Energy requirements, Safety concerns and Possibility or Opportunity as “passing” functions. Finally, another type of emergence, ecoethics, isan embedded constant in biosemiosis. Not all semiosis is good semiosis, not all text is good text. Because our species is moving away from ancient biosemiosisand interrelatedness, this historicity, even ductile enough to invent synthetic semiosis or capricious umwelten, is facing the ecological reality and consequences of an overly anthropocentric text. (shrink)

Résumé Ce document examine les liens entre la manière de rendre compte de la réalité sociale esquissée par George Herbert Mead et développée par Beth Singer et la contrepartie que l’on trouve chez les promoteurs du réalisme critique. Que ce soit principalement dans l’optique d’une défense de la pertinence des contributions de Mead ou dans la perspective d’un raffinement de l’ontologie sociale associée au réalisme critique, les auteurs qui ont déjà comparé ces perspectives ont considéré avant tout les différences. Dans (...) cet article, je soutiens qu’il existe des similitudes importantes entre la manière de rendre compte de la collectivité, des normes et des droits chez Mead et Singer et les thèses récentes énoncées de certains partisans du réalisme critique. En outre, je suggère que dans les cas mêmes où les limitations de l’analyse de Mead sont évidentes, par exemple dans sa description par trop « socialisée » du soi, diverses réponses aux critiques peuvent être apportée et plus d’une se trouve en cohérence avec des aspects centraux du réalisme critique. (shrink)