Transdendental Phenomenology and Blast from the Past: The Structuralist and PostStructuralist Nebulous

Transcendental Phenomenology 

 I am beginning to see “light at the end of the tunnel” this semester. That is, I have a better conception of what I’m doing. I plan to begin researching articles and putting their details into a literature review matrix this weekend.

Also, I feel more drawn to transcendental phenomenology than hermeneutic phenomenology at this point.  I suppose having first read Moustakas (1994) and then having read Moerer-Urhahl and Creswell (2004) has had some bearing on this.  In particular Moustakas outlines steps that Moerer-Urhahl and Creswell refer to as “ideal for assisting less experienced researchers” (p. 21), and I indeed find the guide helpful. Or perhaps my background in psychology, particularly clinical psychology at the graduate level has had a bearing on this preference I find myself articulating. That is, according to Moerer-Urhahl and Crewswell, “hermeneutics requires reflective interpretation of a text or a study in history to achieve a meaningful understanding” (p. 20), but transcendental phenomenology aims to capture and relay “the essences of human experience” (p. 20). I think while these are very similar aims, transcendental phenomenology’s aim is deeper. Yet, I would understand a claim that transcendental phenomenology is further distorted by an additional layer of the researcher’s subjectivity.

While reading Moerer-Urhahl and Creswell (2004), I was pleased to see their study followed Moustakas’ modification to the Van Kaam method of analysis, so I did not have scratch my head too much. Also, I noted the authors’ discussion on epoche or bracketing out the researchers’ prejudgments.  While I suppose this step might help in eliminating a layer of the onion of subjectivity in making the reseachers’ aware and the readers aware of the researchers’ bias, I still don’t think it makes much of a difference.  Even the way we think – the way we perceive – it’s all subjective.

Structuralism and Poststructualism 

 As for structuralism and poststructuralism, I feel like my understanding is spotty.  That is I recognize the related chapter in Grbich (2013) condenses material that was the crux of my philosophy course, but some of it remains an enigma.  While reading Discipline and Punish (1977) exactly two years ago, I did understand basic arguments, such as the work of power in establishing norms to include standardized tests and levels of surveillance. As such, those in authority are the ones who name the signified, recognizing it as worthy of recognition in some way – providing it with a signifier – incorporating it into discourse.  Therefore, the role of the structuralist (like Foucault) “is to reconstruct an “object” in such a way as to manifest thereby the rules of functioning (the “functions”) of this object” (Grbich, p. 169).  In other words, Foucault studied the historical shaping of discourse.  Also, as far as I can tell, Derrida supported these suppositions in suggesting signifiers vary and change (Grbich).

Assuming I understand what I believe I do, I readily acknowledge I still have trouble grasping semiotics.  For instance, I’m not sure I’m convinced that “without language we cannot perceive the difference between others and ourselves” (Grbich, p. 171).

As for Deleuze and Guattari, I understand the “body without organs” as the reflective individual capable of exercising agency or moving against power or territorialisation.  This reflective individual recognizes ideas and belief systems for what they are and exercises agency in forming individual beliefs (deterritorialisation) (Grbich). I am curious about Deleuze and Guitarri’s critique of Marx, however.  I also read Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus two years ago.  But while some of this sounds familiar, I just don’t recall enough.  I know I did not understand it all either.

Finally, where post structuralism is concerned, I’m not detecting a line of demarcation between it and structuralism.

Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2009). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. NY: Penguin.

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. (2^nd ed.). NY: Vintage.

Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moerer-Urdahl, T. & Creswell, J. W. (2004). Using transcendental phenomenology to explore the “Ripple Effect” in a leadership mentoring program. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2), 19-35.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.