Reactions and notes from Vagle, M. (2011). Post-Intentional
Phenomenology and the Egocentric Predicament in Qualitative Research. University
of Georgia.
Exploring Post-Intentional Phenomenology
Dictionary Entries for this Post:
Post-Intentional Phenomenology: "[A
suggestion] that a post commitment such as
seeing knowledge as partial, situated, endlessly deferred,
and circulating through
relations would be a most helpful way to re-conceive
phenomenological research today" (3).
Egocentric Predicament: "The egocentric
predicament that Sokolowski refers to was born in Descartes’ assertion
that the mind could be “removed” from the world—that consciousness and meaning
could be encased in and of itself. Humans, then, were conscious only of
their representations of the world" (5).
In-the-Box Signification: “The very notion, ‘subjectivity,’ carries with it the
in-the-box signification. And I [he] contend[s] that this
signification cannot be escaped so long as the old vocabulary is used” (Ihde
quoted by Vagle, 7).
Variation: "...the “essence” of any phenomenon has
invariant and variant
structures that make that phenomenon what it is" (9).
structures that make that phenomenon what it is" (9).
Bridling Thoughts:
The most interesting item to me in both the reading and in
our discussions is the fluidity and variant meaning, if you will,
about the term Post-Intentional (24). Vagle states in his essay
that, "I don’t see this image as simply a subtle shift from the “old”
phenomenology. I think it provides a sound philosophical and theoretical
ground for multiple perspectives to be brought to bear; for otherwise
disparate theories to be put in conversation with one another; and for
phenomenological meanings to begin to be taken up as situated (historied,
gendered, cultured, raced, classed, sexed) glimpses of lived experiences
rather than invariant structures of the essence of a given phenomenon"
(10).
What I mean by fluidity, or variance, is my interpretation of what Vagle is talking about here. The post-intentional doesn't refer to a shift or change in theory per se, but rather it is a multi-perspective lens by which other theories, seemingly in opposition to each other, can actually complement, inform or assist each other. As a class mate, Colleen noted, it is looking at things that are "In-TENSIONal" (notes.11.13.12). Please note that being in tension, isn't always a negative thing. If previously egocentric phenomenological theories can produce productive tension by being intentional in what they are trying to examine (out of the box, instead of in), then the variations of any given phenomenon can be more fully explored, described, and analyzed in multiple ways other the manners they may have been previously situated (as listed above in the the Vagle quote). Vagle goes on to say, "I suggested that phenomenology can be harnessed and then used to challenge boundaries because: a) it served a radical philosophy over a century ago and b) this radicalness can be amplified and then put into closer dialogue (Ahmed, 2006) with theories specifically designed for disruptive work" (11).
This is the core thought: to be radical enough to push the theory of Phenomenology into places where it can become more adaptive and reflexive, and therefore more in-tune with true lived experiences. Creating positive tensions should always be the goal of any critical analysis of a theory, philosophy, or methodology, so that such analyses can further the field of knowledge theoretically, and eventually the practice as well.
