What is the Pre-Reflective Lifeworld?

Thanks for a great class tonight! I don’t think I have ever undertaken such an in-depth and insightful analysis, so early in the semester, with a group of people, as happened in tonight’s class. Thank you so much, Karla, for sharing your experience with us and allowing us this opportunity. 

Now as we turned to the second part of the course tonight, we started to press on the concept of the “pre-reflective lifeworld.” It was even asked--and rightfully so--whether one can undertake phenomenological research and not believe in a pre-reflective “lived reality.” 

You probably saw my hesitation. On the one hand, I wanted to avoid being dogmatic and giving categorical answers. On the other hand, as you have probably noticed, I wanted to hi-lite boundary areas (as fuzzy as they may be) in order to help you see what is unique about phenomenology. Please consider my answer in that context.

It seems easy to give examples of when we are in the natural attitude, and where our embodied knowledge carries us along just fine: I slam on the breaks to avoid an accident in my car; I ride my bike and effortlessly avoid the dead squirrel in the road; I swim out into the lake, pivot my body, and then dive down to retrieve the pair of lost swimming goggles. Reflection seems hardly present in such actions--my body just “knows” what to do, how to respond, and in what manner to cope.

These examples point to the unabashedly practical orientation to life that phenomenology is based upon. We are in the world, and our being in the world is premised upon our ability to practically cope with the exigencies placed upon us. Breaking, swerving, diving are all “natural” reactions to what the situation seems to call for.

Ok, you say, but those are too easy. What about the softball player who, in her crucial at-bat, has to consider the inning, the count, the pitcher, and her own abilities?  Surely there is an element of reflection here. What would “the natural attitude” mean in such a situation? 

And what of still more complex activities, such as parenting and teaching? Surely these can only be successfully carried out in a mode of full, conscious reflection?

Perhaps. 

Yet is there not a sense in which the ball player, the teacher, and the parent--based upon prior reflection--is able to effortlessly and tactfully respond to the demands of the moment in the right--the morally valuable--manner?

To dwell permanently in the pre-reflective, natural attitude is surely not possible. 

But does that not mean that we, as researchers and human beings, cannot re-orient ourselves to this pre-reflective realm--to the possibilities of dwelling in this realm? Does it not mean, perhaps, that our wisdom and our happiness do not depend on re-orienting ourselves to this realm? 

The great test: can one take reflective knowledge, package it into a series of steps, and then re-present it as knowledge? Probably not. We do not know how to swim unless the knowledge is embodied in practice (we can recite the steps in our head, and drown while doing so). We can present recipes for reading instruction, and leave kids unwilling and unable to read. 

Knowledge resides in skillful practice. Therefore, as phenomenologist, we turn to the vibrant experiences of life in order to uncover their meaning, hopefully thereby edifying ourselves and others.

In introducing the natural and reflective attitudes as irreconcilable dualisms, I do a disservice. But in not trying to tease out a distinction between the two modes of being in the world, I risk leaving you blind to the insights that phenomenology has to offer. 

Have a wonderful week!!