Gordon,

Thanks for a thoughtful and thought provoking answer to my query. My interest is in what I would call the Reckwitz question (since he asks it!) - whether the conceptual core of current academic practice theory (from academics such as Shove and Schatzki) is Heideggerian. In Being and Time (around p. 191 in the 1962 English translation), this philosopher argues that 'fore-having, fore-sight, and for-conception' structure our fundamental relation of understanding entities as equipment ('Zeug').

If I may interpret this radical critique of English empiricism (and Cartesian dualism), Heidegger is arguing that people are always already projecting (from their shared horizons of culturally informed understanding) a meaning on the world, understanding further produced as narrative in negotiating with experience, as we participate with other persons. This habitual process is largely 'ready-to-hand' or tacit (except when challenged or celebrated - moments of Lichtung), and can indeed be read in everyday behaviour, as well as presented subsequently in discussion.

Isn't this the account later developed by Gadamer (pursuing the 'fusion of horizons') and Merleau-Ponty (discussing embodied knowledge or the 'body subject')? And is it not at the core of current practices theory?

Regards,

Tony

Gordon,

Heidegger offers very detailed analyses of being and time, indeed! But such detail is also a characteristic of Oxford analytic philosophy. I find places of enlightenment (LIchtung) in the former rather than the latter. There are some good commentaries online discussing Heidegger's work e.g. Steven Mulhall, Heidegger & Being and Time.

Tony

Heidegger definitely gives the most convincing and logically valid philosophy and method about the inter-subjective nature of hermeneutic. Each theory has its own assumptions which need a check about its resonance with Heideggerian concepts to see further expansion of proliferation along the limes of Heideggerian method.

Govind,

I like your idea of checking the resonance of theory with Heideggerian concepts. So, for instance, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), frequently employed from business to health studies, can be so examined. The emphasis IPA places on thematising - or extracting themes from patients' or research participants' discourse - can be seen as a reworking of Heidegger's notion of 'presenting-at-hand'. Both these processes seek to make explicit tacit assumptions implicit in habituated pre-reflective behaviour - not necessarily just when issues arise but also in celebration.

Regards from Malaysia,

Tony.