Ce texte se propose de revenir sur la manière dont les Principles of Psychology ont été compris et discutés par Husserl et par Wittgenstein. Pour ce faire, on se focalisera ici sur le sens et l’importance stratégique de la dénonciation effectuée par James de l’ erreur du psychologue dans le chapitre VII de l’ouvrage, antérieur au chapitre « The Stream of Thought » qui a retenu toute l’attention de Husserl et de Wittgenstein. Il est suggéré qu’une des sources permettant de (...) déterminer ce qui est en jeu dans les usages divergents des Principles par Husserl et Wittgenstein se situe crucialement dans la manière dont cette dénonciation de l’erreur du psychologue peut être comprise à partir des perspectives respectives des deux auteurs. Un rappel des tensions principales entre, d’une part, le travail de James dans les Principles et, d’autre part, les critiques husserliennes et wittgensteiniennes de la psychologie, permet de comprendre l’importance, la radicalité, mais aussi les insuffisances de cette dénonciation jamesienne de l’erreur du psychologue. (shrink)

This article provides an account of a body of sociological studies recently published which claim to adopt a pragmatist approach. It discusses the validity of this claim through highlighting the similarity between some principles of pragmatism and of sociology (the primacy of practice, the decisive nature of context, the importance of uncertainty, the temporality of action, the sociality of normativity). It eventually argues that a sociological pragmatist-oriented approach should endorse a radically fallibilist perspective and take into account the openness and (...) contingency of inquiry as topics to be empirically investigated as essential aspects of action in common. This would entail paying particular attention to the ingenious ways in which three features of action in common are overcome in practical activities: indeterminacy (descriptions are never complete and individuals have constantly to make sense by themselves of the unavoidable shortcomings of communication); contextuality (renouncing any kind of essentialism and adhering to Wittgenstein’s ordinary grammar perspective); and emergence (apprehending action in common from the point of view of its actual and sequential accomplishment). (shrink)

Bruno Latour’s writings have been discussed at length. My article proposes a ‘version’ of his career that emphasizes the obsessive permanence of his questioning, by focusing on the mission he set himself. Without presuming an a priori coherence, the religious and military connotations of the word ‘mission’ express the strong determination to act and the notion of a calling, and also the indeterminate nature of the object sought as well as the means of achieving it. As William James used to (...) write, the word ‘mission’ underlines the fact that very early on Latour wrote ‘for...’, not followed by an object complement: for something remaining undefined. His aim was neither to build a general theory, nor explain a specific field of activity, such as science, religion or politics, but to grasp things differently, in order to change ways of thinking and acting. And he did it. (shrink)

The speculative philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead offers critical social and cultural theory an unusual way of rethinking the place and value of experience in its concerns. This article explores the challenges that Whitehead's approach to experience, deliberately contrasted with the subject-object thinking of modernity, creates. The article seeks to provide an account of the importance of Whitehead's appeal to naïve experience and of how this appeal counters some of the problems of more recent and more familiar accounts of the (...) fate of experience which draw on some of the same historical points of reference — especially Romantic poetry. In particular, the article suggests that Whitehead's broadly impersonal conception of the open structure of experience as constructive process mitigates the `pathos of finitude' attendant upon critical accounts which presume the unity of experience and then ask how this unity is shattered under modernity. Whitehead's work is situated transversally to analysis and phenomenology and is argued to accord a value to and role for abstraction which calls for a more experimental approach to the topic. While `naïve experience' clearly differs from the understanding of experience evident in other accounts, the article also suggests that it is not incompatible with a more Foucauldian kind of singular history. (shrink)