Once again…Phenomenology or Structuralism ?

Nowadays I am in the habit of trying to figure out whether the author is taking a phenomenology or structuralist approach while I do my readings. I was feeling confident that now I had a better grasp and understood the difference between phenomenological and structuralist approach …….up until…I came across this:

In one of the readings, Smith refers to Blumer and says that “Blumer insists that people relate to each other and to objects on the basis of shared meanings.” My instinct on reading this sentence was …”of course Blumer takes a structuralist approach, as he says that we make sense of the objects around us based on their meanings..”. As soon as this thought crossed my head, a counter thought just popped up…”Hang on, is this not a phenomenological approach as it is basically inter-subjectivity that Blumer is talking about”

Actually, I am confused right now….

Is Blumer taking a purely phenemonolical approach and his use of the word “shared meaning” basically means “shared understanding” and he is indeed refering to intersubjectivity? Or is he probably trying to mix and match the structuralist and phenemonological approach together?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s