| Abstract: | In his article "Husserl Revisited," Jennings (see record 1987-05956-001) did a noteworthy job of introducing the complex work of Edmund Husserl and the relation of that work to psychology. However, to have a broad conception of phenomenology, one must see that Husserl's work is not all there is, or has been, to the praxis of the discipline. It could be asserted that the phenomenological psychology practiced by at least some today stands totally independent of Husserl, drawing instead on Brentano, Stumpf, James, and the gestaltists. In saying this, it is not my point to defame Husserl, merely to keep him in perspective. There can be no doubt of Husserl's influence on many current phenomenological psychologists (e.g. Giorgi, 1970). Still, articles like Jennings's promote a confusion between the work of one individual and the discipline as a whole. It was my intention in this comment to suggest sources for review and consideration, believing that from them readers will find a more complex and less distinct relationship between phenomenology and psychology than that presented by comparing only Husserl's views with psychology. Beyond this point, I share the views of Jennings completely and embrace the aim of his original article, which was to stimulate "a more fruitful dialogue between the disciplines" (p. 1240). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
