Notes on Srubar

This page contains student contributions of the course Comparing Cultures.

Comparing cultures on the foundation of the concept “Lebenswelt”

Notes to the presentation on the 17th of July 2013 by Laura B and Juliane S

Srubar, Ilja (2005): “Die pragmatische Lebenswelttheorie als Grundlage interkulturellen Vergleichs”, in: Srubar, I./Renn,J./Wenzel U. (Hrsg.): Kulturen vergleichen Sozial und kulturwissenschaftliche Grundlagen und Kontroversen, Wiesbaden, 151171.

1. Contra Matthes (151157)

Srubar is arguing against Matthes (1992) radical relativism which is based on the idea that by comparing cultures something unfamiliar of another culture is always turned into something familiar of the own culture. This process is called Nostrification. From this perspective it is not possible to compare cultures because the person who tries to compare will always see the other culture from his specific perspective. From Srubar’s point of view it is possible to compare cultures on the foundation of the concept Lebenswelt. All cultures have a common, circular logic: they produce and reproduce in the medium “sense” and it is possible to observe cultures in this process. Srubar’s thoughts are grounded on the one hand on the sociological systemtheory of Niklas Luhmann and on the other and on the phenomenological tradition of Husserl. Srubar aims to research about the constitutive processes of cultures: how do cultures become and how do they remain?

2. Concept “Lebenswelt” and definition of culture (157166)

Every culture is able to be reduced on the formal structure of “Lebenswelt”. So this concept is a universal basic for every culture. The concept of “Lebenswelt” is structured in four mechanisms and each mechanism includes a specific space of knowledge: There are the mechanisms of selfawareness and body, of action and interaction/ communication and the mechanism of signs and semantics. Let’s have a look: What does Srubar means with the space of selfawareness and constitution of the own body? Well, this mechanism describes the way every individual thinks , behaves and feels in the world. It is a very subjective space of knowledge depending on one’s own social surrounding and constitution of one’s character and body.

The mechanism of action means the way somebody acts in his/her surrounding: The way a human being influences and works in the world.

Well, at the moment a human being acts in the world, he/she gets into contact with other subjectives or objectives: This is the space of interaction and communication. As you can see there is a mindful connection between the single mechanisms and the spaces of knowledge are generative. Because knowledge is in movement, grows and degenerates in communication and action you cannot fix the single spaces: They depend on each other and influence the other mechanisms. However, the space of signs fixes the subjective knowledge on an objective level of semantics and semiotics. That is necessary for communication and interaction, but of course this mechanism of signs is in movement, too. The language of the 21th century is not the same as the common signs of the 16th century.

In summary, cultures integrate these four spaces of knowledge. And cultures are constituted by these mechanisms. Therefore all cultures share the same identity but in reality they are different. There is a cultural variety as the knowledge constituted by the single spaces is generative and individual. Every culture has its individual way of realizing the basic concept of “Lebenswelt”.

3. Comparing cultures based on this theory (166170)

What does the concept of Lebenswelt imply for the comparison of cultures? Every human being has an individual Lebenswelt, also people coming from the same cultural background. There are different degrees of shared Lebenswelt. Some people share more aspects of Lebenswelt than others e.g. two people studying at the same university and sharing a flat share some aspects of their Lebenswelten than, but not all. They don’t have the same family background or share the same partner. Because every human being has a different Lebenswelt it is not possible to reach an objective point of view on another culture. As scientists are humans they won’t be able to describe another culture “objectively”. But in contrary to Matthes Srubar isn’t reasoning that one can’t compare cultures at all. As the formal structure of cultures are similar, science can observe cultures in their building and processing of the structure. On all four levels of Lebenswelt every culture is producing and reproducing in medium “sense”. The outcomes of these processes are different, but the way they “become” and “make sense” is similar and can be retained. The shared structure makes it possible for scientists to write, talk and to compare cultures.

But how can we do justice to the differences between cultures? How is it possible to express and to compare something specific and unique with a structural language?