Typifications
From Geography
Contents |
Typifications
In his ‘theory of man’, Alfred Schütz talks about the way humans get by in everyday society. In this respect he says: “To get by, the individual must ‘define’ his situation, that is he must establish or decide in what sort of situation he finds himself, what his problems are, and how he can go about gaining his objectives.” (Campbell, 1981, p. 202) In order to do this, a human uses a ‘stock of knowledge’. This is knowledge about the world which is built up through someone’s own experiences and which is passed on to him by his or her social group (ibid., p. 203). When someone experiences something in the present which is similar to what he has experienced in the past, the person knows how to deal with the current situation because of the resemblance of a past situation. This means that someone’s definition of a situation is biographically determined, because it depends on that persons own experiences and history (ibid., p. 202).
This ‘stock of knowledge’ presupposes that humans think of the world as made up of types of things (ibid., p. 202). “The process of abstraction and formalization by means of which we classify things […] Schütz calls ‘typification’.” (ibid., p. 203) When we connect different typifications, we can recognize situations as being of a certain kind and that way we know how to deal with them. So, through typifications we are able to see the world as meaningful and connected instead of disorganized and chaotic. McKinney describes it as follows: “Typification, perceiving the world and structuring it by means of types and typologies, is depicted as an essential and intrinsic aspect of the basic orientation of actors to their situations. It is important for structuring the ‘self’, conceptualizing ‘roles’, and as a necessary feature of institutionalization and the development of social structure.” (McKinney, 1969, abstract).
For the individual this means that he is always in process to “construct a world” and always takes “for granted something”. Practically the individual selects what is relevant to him (e.g. things) in his everyday world, by sorting things “into domains of relevance” of which the “primary domain” consists of “immediate objects” or “events” perceived also in the hope to change some of them (Campbell, 1981, p. 203). Although a lot of the “individual understanding of the world” is given to the individual, actors always act freely. It is “only in retrospect” that actions might appear “determined” (ibid., p. 205). Typifications are object to creation and communication. This often is based on certain groups in which typifications have historically been transmitted e.g. “through the mother-tongue”, “signs” and “symbols” which contain whole “sets of typifications” (ibid., p. 206). Thus the “representation” and reproduction of a “socio-cultural” world (“society as linguistic community” (ibid.) has to do with being in or out. It is “in-groups” which generarte the “sets of typifications” which are common in their community or even in society as whole. This is how a common knowledge stock is established. To be part of the society then one has to understand the “patterns of behavior of others”. One could thus describe typifications as “socially derived” (ibid., p. 208). Typifications thus can also help the individual to find “standard solutions to standard problems” as some sort of “socially approved recipies”. Language can be thus regarded as a key-factor to the transmission of typifications which then become part of “institutionalized knowledge of society” based on a huge amount of assumptions (Campbell, 1981, p. 208).
Types of typification
Schütz also distinguishes two other types of typification. The first he calls “self-typification”. This has to do with a learning process of the individual how to fit himself “into the wider world”. This has to do with an observation of the self “playing a set part in a typical situation”. Herein Schütz also sees the foundation for the “ability to cooperate with people”, which are unknown to us (ibid., p. 209). The second typification he mentions is closely linked to this idea. “Completely anonymous typification” takes place whenever and although there are no shared experiences. It happens in “all relationships with contemporaries”, “predecessors” or “successors” (ibid.). Instead of a shared experience, there is “awareness of the relationships” which is more or less “abstract” and “devoid of personal details”. Thus typification can take place in direct relationships on a basis of “face to face”- interaction, but also towards others in the”past”, “present” and for indirect relations (ibid.). Yet it is the “everyday world” and experiences which give to humans the “ability to deal with the socio-cultural world beyond the consociates” (ibid., p. 210). And it is the typifications of those structures which help to individuals in the “practical apprehension of reconstructs” which do not have to be real, but helpful for coping to the individual (ibid.).
The concept of typification can also be found in both Max Weber and Edmund Husserl (Wilson, 2002). Husserl recognizes typification as a key process in our sense-making about the world. In Weber’s work, there is the concept of ‘ideal types’ (“These are simplified models of social activities which are used in interpreting human behaviour” (Campbell, 1981, p. 175), which relates to the concept of typification.
References
Campbell, T. (1981). Alfred Schutz: a phenomenological approach. In Campbell, T. (Eds.), Seven Theories of Human Society. Calvedon Press: Oxford.
McKinney, J.C. (1969). Typifications, Typologies and Sociological Theory. Social Forces, Vol. 48 (1)
Wilson, T.D. (2002). Alfred Schutz, phenomenology and research methodology for information behaviour research. Geraadpleegd op 27 september 2010, op http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/papers/schutz02.html
Contributors
Edited by Janna Völpel, s3015041JannaVolpel 14:36, 7 May 2012 (CEST)
