Michela Summa

Title descriptionBody Memory, Metaphor and Movement is an interdisciplinary volume with contributions from philosophers, cognitive scientists, and movement therapists. Part one provides the phenomenologically grounded definition of body memory with its different typologies. Part two follows the aim to integrate phenomenology, conceptual metaphor theory, and embodiment approaches from the cognitive sciences for the development of appropriate empirical methods to address body memory. Part three inquires into the forms and effects of therapeutic work with body memory, based on the integration of theory, empirical findings, and clinical applications. It focuses on trauma treatment and the healing power of movement. The book also contributes to metaphor theory, application and research, and therefore addresses metaphor researchers and linguists interested in the embodied grounds of metaphor. Thus, it is of particular interest for researchers from the cognitive sciences, social sciences, and humanities as well as clinical practitioners.

The present study is an empirical documentation of body memory and the transition from implicit to explicit memory from the cognitive-linguistic, movement analytic, and philosophical perspectives in a therapeutic application. The transition from implicit memory to explicit memory is described using the concept of activated metaphoricity. It is argued that body movements executed in the absence of speech may provide the experiential source for multimodal metaphors. Tracing these bodily movements from speechless contexts to contexts encompassing speech and body movement allows for the empirical documentation of the transition from implicit body memory to explicit verbalized memory. In this chapter, these theoretical claims are substantiated from the results of an interdisciplinary case study in a dance/movement therapy context.

This chapter aims to provide a phenomenological account of the role of body memory in the formation of meaning. To this aim, the theory of embodied meaning put forward by experientialism and the phenomenological account of Typoi and typological constitution are comparatively considered. First the difficulties in the experientialist theory of embodied meaning are discussed. Second Husserl’s phenomenology of typological apprehension is presented as offering a more appropriate account of the genesis of meaning in relation to implicit body memory. Third it is argued that the refined conceptual background in contemporary cognitive linguistics opens up the field for a fruitful dialogue between phenomenology and cognitive linguistics regarding the constitution of meaning.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the relation between perceptual and imaginal space. I argue that, notwithstanding the differences between acts of imagining and acts of perceiving, common structures in the spatial appearance of perceived things, physical images, and imagined or phantasized objects should be recognized. In the first section, some controversial issues concerning the spatiality of images in the so-called mental imagery debate are introduced. One of the most problematic aspects in this debate is the ambiguity in the use of the concept of ‘space’ which does not allow us to distinguish between spatial form and existence in space. The distinction between spatial form and existence in space will be further discussed in the second section by means of a reassessment of the spatiality of perceptual things, considered independently of their material features. The third and final section is devoted to the inquiry into imaginal space. It focuses on both the spatiality of physical images and the spatiality of phantasized objects, and considers both in relation to perceptual space. It is argued that, with relevant variations, the essential features characterizing the spatiality of purely perceptual objects (considered independently from their materiality) also characterize the spatiality of images and phantasized objects. This will eventually provide a phenomenologically grounded argument supporting the ideality of space, understood as ‘intuitive space of possibilities’.

In the texts collected in the second volume of the Studien zur Struktur des Bewusstseins, Husserl extensively discusses experiences of joy (Freude). By considering Husserl’s examples related to joy not as mere illustrations, but as a guiding thread for the identification of experiential structures, this article shows how these examples are not only significant for the general theory of intentionality of affective and emotional non-objectifying acts, but also provide valuable insights into the specific phenomenon of joy itself. Specifically, the article demonstrates how the distinction between joy, sensory pleasure, and liking provides insights into the intentional structure of joy as a responsive affect. On the basis of these distinctions, the article raises the normative question about the appropriateness of affective and emotional responses. It argues that the appropriateness of joy should be assessed from two perspectives: in relation to the value that justifies an affective response and in relation to a personal motivational nexus. From the former perspective, joy can be normatively assessed. However, when only considering the latter perspective, joy cannot be assessed according to objective normative standards. Finally, building on these findings, the article explores how the phenomenology of joy and motivation may be connected to the specific experience of depth and discusses the role of joy for a phenomenological investigation of the personal self.

This article explores the roots of action in behavior. Departing from the standard understanding of action as ‘intentional behavior’, we argue that this view is often based on the underestimation of the intentional structures that are already operative within behavior. Distinguishing between a broader and a narrower meaning of intentionality, we then elaborate on the processes that lead from the diffuse and operative intentionality of behavior to the focused intentionality of action. In order to properly appreciate these processes, we show that a reassessment of the phenomenon of attention – which takes into consideration its double (passive and active) nature as well as its social embedment – is required. Finally, we discuss the interplay between the obtained reframing of the genesis of intentional actions with the phenomenon of social ascription.

Both the commonsensical and the philosophical understanding of curiosity as the desire to know display similar ambiguities. In philosophy, such ambiguities have further repercussions, inasmuch as inquiries into curiosity, in addition to being a field of philosophical research in itself, also have meta-theoretical implications concerning the idea of philosophy one embraces. This holds true for Edmund Husserl’s discussion of curiosity: his phenomenological analysis of curiosity as an object of inquiry is crucially connected with a specific meta-theoretical understanding of philosophy as an exploratory endeavor. This article analyses the relevance of the phenomenological analyses of curiosity against the background of the discussion of a polarization in the appreciation of the role of curiosity for philosophy and of the tasks Husserl assigns to philosophy. It focuses on how Husserl’s appraisal of curiosity in philosophy is tied to his concrete analyses of the intentional structure of ordinary curiosity. Crucial for this appraisal and for its meta-theoretical implications is the analysis of the relation between curiosity and the basic structure of intentionality as tendency.

This volume explores Husserl's theory of sensibility and his conceptualization of spatial and temporal constitution. The author maps the linkages between Husserl's 'transcendental aesthetic', the theory of pure experience in empirio-criticism, as well as Immanuel Kant's transcendental philosophy. The core argument in this analysis centers on the relationship between spatiality and temporality in Husserl's philosophy. The study interrogates Husserl's understanding of the relationship between spatiality and temporality in terms of stratifications, analogies and parallelisms. It incorporates a discussion of the potentialities and limitations of such an understanding. It concludes that such limits can be overcome by adopting an understanding of spatiality and temporality as interwoven moments of sensible experience-a 'spatio-temporal intertwining'. This 'intertwining' is made explicit in a thorough inquiry into three central topics in the phenomenological analysis of sensible experience: spatio-temporal individuation, perspectival givenness and bodily experience. The book shows how such an inquiry can form the bedrock of a dynamic and relational understanding of experience as a whole.

English summary: In philosophy, examples are usually employed as illustrations of already determined abstract or general thoughts. In contrast to this view, the contributions of this volume focus on the exemplary and normative function of examples, as guides in order to find a not yet given universal or generality. German description: Der Band diskutiert die theoretische und praktische Bedeutung des Exemplarischen als ein Individuelles, das selbst als Manifestation eines Allgemeinen verstanden wird. Gegenuber der gewohnlichen Auffassung, derzufolge Beispiele lediglich zur nachtraglichen Illustration bereits bestimmter abstrakter Gedanken verwendet werden, beschaftigen sich die Beitrage des Bandes mit dem Beispiel in seiner exemplarischen Bedeutung, bei der das Individuelle selbst als Manifestation des Allgemeinen verstanden wird. Die klassischen Bereiche, in denen diese Rolle und Funktion des Exemplarischen explizit thematisiert werden, sind die Rhetorik, die Kunsttheorie sowie die Didaktik. Demgegenuber spielt das Exemplarische in der allgemeinen Reflexion der theoretischen und praktischen Philosophie keine oder allenfalls eine sehr untergeordnete Rolle. Diese theoretische Vernachlassigung steht in einem auffallenden Gegensatz zur operativen Bedeutung des Exemplarischen im Kontext unseres theoretischen und praktischen Wissens.

Whether, and in what sense, research in phenomenology and phenomenological psychopathology has—in addition to its descriptive and hermeneutic value—explanatory power is somewhat controversial. This paper shows why it is legitimate to recognize such explanatory power. To this end, the paper analyzes two central concerns underlying the debate about explanation in phenomenology: (a) the warning against reductionism, which is implicit in a conception of causal explanation exclusively based on models of natural/physical causation; and (b) the warning against top-down generalizations, which neglect the specificity of the individual. While acknowledging that these two caveats express serious concerns regarding the debate on explanatory models, I show that phenomenology has the resources to respond to them. These can be found in analyses of different types of causation relating to different regions of reality and in the structure of explanatory models based on exemplarity. On the basis of these analyses, I defend a pluralist account vis-à-vis explanatory models.

According to the so-called ‘artifactual theory’ of fiction, fictional objects are to be considered as abstract artifacts. Within this framework, fictional objects are defined on the basis of their complex dependence on literary works, authors, and readership. This theory is explicitly distinguished from other approaches to fictions, notably from the imaginary-object theory. In this article, I argue that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive but can and should be integrated. In particular, the ontology of fiction can be fruitfully supplemented by a phenomenological analysis, which allows us to clarify the defining modes of givenness of fictional objects. Likewise, based on the results of the artifactual theory, some assumptions in the imaginary-object theory, which are liable to be interpreted as laying the ground to phenomenalism, can be corrected.

This paper focuses on the performative character of fictional language. While assuming that all speaking is a form of acting, it aims to shed light on the nature of fictional, and particularly literary, speech acts. To this aim, relevant input can be found in the discussion of the ontological status of fictional entities and of their constitution and in the inquiry into the interaction between author and receiver of a fictional work. Based on the critical assessment of different approaches in the debate on speech-act theory and literary fiction, the article first clarifies why the study of the performative character of fictional language cannot be reduced to either the discussion of the status of singular speech acts in the fiction or the inquiry into the pretend or unserious nature of fictional speech acts formulated by an author. While referring to Roman Ingarden’s, Jean-Paul Sartre’s, and Wolfgang Iser’s work, it subsequently argues that such a performative character should be understood as a specific serious affordance—or appeal—to imagine and thus to participate in the constitution of the fictional world.

This article aims to highlight the relevance of Bernhard Waldenfels’ responsive phenomenology for questions related to normality and to the different kinds of deviation from what is taken tobe normal. The article begins with a discussion of two limit cases in the understanding of the concepts of normality and deviation: a strictly normative understanding, according to which each deviation is norm-deviation, and a descriptive understanding, according to which deviation is what underlies individuality. Considering Waldenfels’ responsive philosophy in connection with Kurt Goldstein’s and George Canguilhem’s philosophies of the organism, both understandings are critically discussed. In particular, the article shows how both views turn out to be one-sided and should be revised on the basis of a responsive account of the organism (particularly of the human organism) and its situated relation to circumstances, events, and affordances in the world it inhabits. The analysis of the different forms of responsiveness of the human organism, and notably the distinction between ‘catastrophic’ or pathological and ‘creative’ or organising kinds of responsiveness, can allow us to develop a relational and dynamic account of normality and deviation. Accordingly, neither normality nor deviation should be taken as univocally defined states; they should rather be reassessed on the basis of the processes in and through which order is interrupted, disturbed, and possibly reshaped or newly instituted.

Il presente articolo si propone di mettere in luce la rilevanza teorica della fenomenologia per la psicopatologia. A tal fine, l’argomentazione sarà focalizzata sul lavoro dello psichiatra tedesco Wolfgang Blankenburg. Nel concepire e sviluppare la sua cosiddetta “psicopatologia del senso comune”, Blankenburg fa costantemente appello alla fenomenologica husserliana ed instaura con essa un dialogo proficuo sul piano teorico ed epistemologico. Questo confronto consente a Blankenburg, da un lato, di elaborare un approccio alla psicopatologia fondato fenomenologicamente e, d’altro lato, di ridefinire lo statuto della psicopatologia stessa come disciplina scientifica. Attraverso l’analisi critica dei lavori di Blankenburg e la valutazione del suo reinvestimento di alcuni momenti centrali del pensiero di Husserl, si mostrerà come questi possano avere un impatto di rilievo nell’ambito della psicopatologia. In particolare, si discuterà come i due pilastri del metodo fenomenologico husserliano, l’epoché e la descrizione eidetica, possano svolgere un ruolo considerevole nelle ricerche di psicopatologia.

This paper develops an analysis of the relation between fiction and make-believe based on the achievements of imagination. The argument aims at a “reciprocal supplementation” between two approaches to fiction. According to one approach, pretense or make-believe structures play a crucial role in our experience of fiction. Discussing Husserl’s view on bound imagining and Walton’s account of fiction as make-believe, I show why pretense and make-believe cannot thereby be reduced to the mere reproduction of something we would experience as original. According to the other approach, which is presented in Ricoeur’s work on imagination, fiction exemplifies a productive or creative power of imagination that is not active in pretense or make-believe activities. The reciprocal supplementation between these two approaches concerns the following aspects: on the one hand, I wish show why Husserl and Walton allow us to rectify Ricoeur’s claim that make-believe is only reproductive. On the other hand, taking up some of Ricoeur’s insights, I wish to clarify why such an impact should be understood in terms of transformation.

The aim of this article is to develop a phenomenological analysis of pretense. In different forms of pretense, something we take to be fictive is somehow transposed into a context that we experience as real. Due to this ‘transposition’, the context itself, under certain respects, becomes unreal or fictional. When we ‘live’ in a pretense context, we bracket or conceal what we take for real. Departing from both meta-representational and simulationist approaches, the phenomenological interpretation of pretense is developed based, on the one hand, on the analysis of the role of perceptual and, on the other hand, on the inquiry into the central moments making up the sociality of pretense. In relation to the intersubjective/social nature of pretense and to reassessment of the relation between ‘being’ and ‘appearing’, which result from the analysis of the role of perceptual, different forms of perspectival flexibility that are actualized in pretense will be discussed.

This paper develops a phenomenological analysis of the disturbances of self-experience in dementia. After considering the lack of conceptual clarity regarding the notions of self and person in current research on dementia, we develop a phenomenological theory of the structure of self-experience in the first section. Within this complex structure, we distinguish between the basic level of pre-reflective self-awareness, the episodic sense of self, and the narrative constitution of the self. In the second section, we focus on dementia and argue that, despite the impairment of narrative self-understanding, more basic moments of self-experience are preserved. In accordance with the theory developed in the first part, we argue that, at least until the final stages of the illness, these self-experience in dementia goes beyond the pure minimal self, and rather entail forms of self-reference and an episodic sense of self.

The present article explores some currently disputed issues regarding the relationship between temporality, memory, and the self. To exemplify and to concretely examine the problems under consideration, a phenomenological analysis of dementia illnesses is proposed. The first objective of this article is to develop an appropriate concept of the self, apt to describe the experience of dementia patients. To this aim, the different positions in the debate regarding the preservation of the self in dementia patients are first critically assessed. Subsequently, it is shown how the phenomenological distinction between the basic sense of self, often indicated as the minimal self, and the higher forms of narrative self-consciousness and identity can fruitfully contribute in this debate. The second objective of the article is a more concrete qualification of the minimal self. Particularly, the determination of the minimal self as un-extended in time is challenged. On the basis of the phenomenology of time and implicit bodymemory, and still exemplarily referring to the analysis of dementia illnesses, it will be argued that a concrete description of basic self-experience necessarily needs to take its spatio-temporal unfolding into account.

This chapter has two related aims. The first one is to bring to the fore the potential of a ‘multi-layered’ account of empathy. The second one is to clarify the role of imagination in empathy, with particular attention to the process of ‘centrally imagining’ what the other is experiencing. The argument is based on the comparison between Peter Goldie’s and Edith Stein’s accounts of empathy. As to the first point, I will show that Goldie’s rather sophisticated concept of empathy already presupposes basic layers of understanding, which are more thoroughly clarified in Stein’s analyses. As to the second point, I will argue that empathy, in its different layers, significantly relies on imagination, and more precisely on ‘central imagining’. In order to clarify the meaning of ‘central imagining’, without incurring into either conceptual and phenomenological paradoxes or ethically dubious statements, a closer consideration of how the imagining subject is and can be involved in interpersonal perspectival shift is required.