Search

This current collection of essays presents a rich offering of interdisciplinary scholarship from some of the leading thinkers alongside emerging scholars connected to the enactivist tradition and its progenitor phenomenology; their remit – to investigate how the various dimensions and domains of our shared world are crucially informed by cultural modes of embodiment and enactively galvanized cultural contexts. Many of the chapters were presented as papers at the conference Enacting Culture: Embodiment, Interaction and the Development of Culture, October 15-17, 2014, University of Heidelberg, Germany. This was the final conference marking the end of the European Commission funded Innovative Training Network, Towards an Embodied Science of Intersubjectivity. Irish Research Council

This article explores the issue of homelessness from the perspective of someone who has experienced homelessness, as someone who has worked with the homeless and heard the stories of ‘our friends on the street’, as a mother distressed to see other mothers’ children, no matter their age, in such dire circumstances, and as a philosopher driven to interrogate the hidden assumptions and beliefs motivating our choices, judgments, and behavior. Irish Research Council

What can philosophy offer psychiatry? What can psychiatry offer philosophy? Simply, there is nothing as harmful as a bad theory put into practice and conversely the constraints of practice and the recalcitrance of the realities of anomalous experiences offer instructive challenges to theory. We know well that the history of medicine and psychiatry have many examples of bad theory having been put into practice often with tragic consequences. Equally the extremes of armchair philosophy and far-fetched thought experiments, while keeping some philosophers busy chasing zombies or possible worlds in which minds can be uploaded into a computer hard-drives, leave philosophy open to accusations of irrelevance and obfuscation.

What is happiness? The word conjures sunshine, pleasure, expansiveness and possibility – and we all claim some knowledge and experience of happiness. Nonetheless, happiness, perhaps more than any other experience, is defined and delineated in the negative. Happiness is not suffering, not anguish, not absence or lack, not loneliness, not depression, not melancholy. That we do not in fact have grasp of a pure state, such as happiness, in isolation from its contraries illuminates something important about how our selves and our realities are structured. We are able to recognise it not only because it is already a part of our experiential repertoire but also because we are already familiar with its converse. This insight has direct implications for our experiences in general and for the experience of happiness in particular.

The overall aim of this paper is to defend the value of the arts as uniquely instructive regarding philosophical questions. Specifically, I aim to achieve two things: firstly, to show that through the phenomenological challenge to dualist and monist ontologies the key debate in aesthetics regarding subjective response and objective judgment is reconfigured and resolved. I argue that Merleau-Ponty’s analyses complement and complete Kant’s project. Secondly, I propose that through his phenomenological interrogations of the creative process the issue of the viability of his relational non-dualist ontology is defended against accusations that it has not gone beyond dualism or that it has collapsed into a monism.

Merleau-Ponty's reversibility thesis argues that self, other and world are inherently relational, interdependent at the level of ontology. What is at stake in the reversibility thesis is whether it overcomes skeptical objections in both assuring real communication and avoiding solipsism in assuring real difference; the Other must be a genuine, irreducible Other. It is objected that across the domains of reversibility, symmetry and reciprocity are not guaranteed. I argue that this is a non-problem; rather the potentialities for asymmetry and non reciprocity in fact guarantee the irreducibility of the Other; reversibility needs to be appreciated as dialectical or aesthetic, not as a literal or 'mechanistic' reversal. A further criticism targets the viability of ontology itself, whether alterity is ever compatible with ontology. This paper considers these objections from two of Merleau-Ponty's contemporaries—Claude Lefort and Emmanuel Levinas. Levinas developed a philosophy which while intersecting with Merleau-Ponty's at important junctures, nonetheless arrived at an entirely different destination. I argue alongside Martin Dillon against the objections of Lefort, and alongside Dan Zahavi against the objections of Levinas. Both of these interpreters, I propose remain faithful to the core directions and spirit of Merleau-Ponty's endeavours without becoming diverted by the less significant inconsistencies.

The sovereign gaze of the human subject has predominated in natural science and aesthetics across representations of animality and animal lifeworlds. Nonetheless, exceptions to such sovereign gazes, characterised by distantiation, hierarchies, dichotomies of gazer and gazed-at, are found in the work of von Uexküll and da Vinci, in the exceptional quality of attention they bring to their tasks; a transformative attention, revealing as Merleau-Ponty describes “a strange kinship” of interanimality., Le regard souverain du sujet humain a prédominé dans les représentations de l’animalité et des animaux dans les sciences naturelles et l’esthétique. Néanmoins, les oeuvres de Vinci ou les écrits d’Uexküll font exception parmi ces regards caractérisés par la distanciation, la hiérarchie, et les dichotomies entre le regardant et le regardé. À travers la qualité exceptionnelle de ces oeuvres se déploie une attention transformatrice, révélant comme l’a décrit Merleau-Ponty “une parenté étrange” d’interanimalité.

We are transformed not only through our relations with each other, but also through our relations with technologies. Rather than a Sartrean (1992) or Merleau-Pontian (2002) approach to using the concept of the gaze in order to refer to an objectifying or inhumanizing effect on the human subject from something or someone other than the human themself, I use the term to describe how our use of technology transforms our perception of the world, adding an "inhuman" element to our own gaze. This shift moves the focus from an externally directed inhuman gaze to looking within the subject—intrasubjectively—at the transformation that occurs through our experiences with, and the potentialities of, technologies. In this chapter, I draw upon concepts from contemporary fields of inquiry that subscribe to an interrelational ontology; specifically, critical posthumanism and postphenomenology. I leverage the concept of an embodied and pragmatic technological relation in order to help better understand the enabling and constraining effects of this transformation. I argue that these technologies continue to mediate our perception of the world even when we are not using them. The term technological gaze identifies this concept, allowing us to become more aware of the effects of technologies that often go unnoticed. By increasing our awareness, we have an increased chance at regaining some of our agency and potentially making better-informed decisions concerning what and how we invite technologies into our lives.

The unsettling, humiliating, and often threatening experience of feeling oneself ‘invisible’ before the gazes of other people in one’s social world has obvious potential as a theme for collaborative efforts between social theorists and phenomenologists. This chapter proposes one way of approaching such an engagement, drawing in particular upon three authors who offer detailed analyses of social visibility and its potential pathologies: Axel Honneth, Frantz Fanon, and Edmund Husserl. The specific phenomenon is first be located by way of Honneth’s treatment of social invisibility as frequented by behaviour that expresses an attitude of nonrecognition towards other persons immediately present. Drawing from Fanon (and others), it is then argued that Honneth’s generally perceptive analysis, by focussing primarily on cases involving the seeming absence of all emotive recognition, underestimates the role of certain (dehumanising) emotional responses in conveying to persons their ‘invisibility.’ While the exact relationships holding between perception and affect remain largely unexplored in Honneth’s work, the chapter goes on to consider these relationships phenomenologically by drawing upon Husserl’s unpublished writings on emotion and social experience. Moreover, it is suggested that the form of nonrecognition involved with social invisibility can be understood as a manifestation of a broader danger implicit within affective life, that is termed ‘emotional blindness’. Briefly put, it is proposed that the ‘invisibilising gaze’ manifests an affective response that, while sometimes partially co-responsive to social perception and understanding, is contaminated with associative configurations that lead our feelings astray. peerReviewed