Alfred Schutz: Philosopher of Socia l Science in the 20th Century

(sursa: http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/)

Alfred Schutz was a social scientist as well as a philosopher whose ideas are increasingly

appreciated all around the planet and in nineteen different disciplines through fourteen

different languages. My purpose today is to try to help you begin to understand his

thoughts and then maybe you will try to read his writings. His writings are among the

easiest to understand by any philosopher in the twentieth century. But I would not only be

talking about his ideas. Alfred Schutz also shows how one can live a full life as a human

being. He cared intensely for his family, his friends, his students, and he was loved by

them in return.

Schutz’s life falls into two parts. He was born and grew up in Vienna, Austria and

worked there until 1938 when the Nazis invaded. Then, he and his family fled through

Paris to the United States where he was able to study, work, teach for the rest of his life.

Before we get into the intertwined stories of Schutz’s life and his thinking, let me explain

that Schutz’s thought was, well, the best word is transdisciplinary. When he started

teaching, he taught sociology as well as philosophy, but he could have just as easily

taught economics or linguistics or political science. He was concerned, you see, with the

general approach and the basic ideas shared by all the social sciences, not just this or that

particular discipline.

Concerning Schutz’s childhood, we are fortunate that Alfred’s wife, Ilse, was

interviewed for an oral history project in1981.

My husband was born in Vienna, Austria on April 13, 1899. His mother’s

name was Johanna Schutz, born Fillia, born on November 19, 1873 in

Czechoslovakia and died here in America, February 28, 1955.

Ilse goes on to tell how Alfred’s father, also called Alfred Schutz, died almost two and a

half months before his son was born and how, after a few years, his mother married her

husband’s brother, Otto – a common practice in that time. His mother was always very

ambitious for him, and he was always the best at school. He studied eight years of Latin

and eight years of Greek. He did not participate much at sports because his mother

always tried to make him do things that he was good at. As a youth he began his lifelong

interest in literature and painting. He really admired Bellini’s Pieta and Rembrandt’s

Jewish Bride, but his most beloved art was music. Alfred Schutz’s son, George, will tell

us about how his father said he became interested in music when he was young.

To grow up in Vienna was to be surrounded by music, and it just seemed

to be part of everyday life. So, my father went to concerts when he was

very young. Of course, standing room in the opera was tradition. That was

where you met people, and street cleaners outside would sing arias from

operas they heard the night before. And, of course, my father was very

studious about everything that he experienced, and so I’m sure he went to

libraries and did a lot of research. He ultimately found out more about

music than many professionals who came to him for coaching because his

knowledge was so extensive.

Once he finished secondary school at seventeen, Alfred Schutz enlisted in the

Austrian Army. This was in the time of the Gr eat War, World War I. He could have

avoided service because of a chronic ear infection, but chose not to mention it to the

doctors, and he more or less expected to die. He joined the artillery and after training was

assigned the task of establishing and restoring communications between the front lines

and headquarters. He spent ten months at the front, and then got a furlough, taking what
proved to be the last train from the front to Vienna.. When he arrived, he found the war

had ended and the revolution that ended the monarchy had begun.

Schutz began his formal studies at the University of Vienna immediately. His

only benefit as a veteran was that he could graduate in two and a half years rather than

four, but still doing the same amount of work. He studied law with a concentration in

international law, his main professor being Hans Kelsen. He also tended the Viennese

Academy of International Trade. And, later he told Talcott Parsons that “I came from the

most concrete problems of economics and of the theory of law.”

What happened next, educationally, is told by one of Schutz’s closest friends,

Fritz Machlup, the famous economist. He was interviewed by George Schutz in 1980 .

I think I met your father in 1924 in the private seminar of Professor Mises,

Ludwig von Mises, of which your father and I were members. That was

really attended only by very young people. And all members had interest

in transdisciplinary work. So there were plenty of lawyers but not a single

lawyer would ever talk about law. Your father had a law degree.

Economics was taught in the faculty of law. So, your father was exposed

to courses in economics from the very beginning, but at the same time his

great interest in philosophy of science and methodology made him always

very interested in how we economists try to think, and how we argue, how

we reason, and what are the methods by which we decide whether

something is valid or invalid. I soon became a great listener to Schutz’s

ideas. And, there were many, many times that after a meeting we would

spend hours talking. I remember there were days when we stopped talking

at three or four o’clock in the morning, often walking in the street, just

talking and talking without end. And very often I had great resistance,
 inner resistance, to the way your father was seeing things. But then very

often I began to learn to see the way he reasoned. And, so I consider

myself a faithful disciple of your father.

I think its fair to say that by participating in such intellectual circles as the privät seminar

of Ludwig von Mises, as well as the intense dialogues with people like his friend

Machlup, Alfred Schutz underwent an advanced course of multidisciplinary studies in

Vienna.

Edmund Husserl, the philosopher who had the greatest influence on Alfred

Schutz, used to say that he was a business executive by day and a phenomenological

philosopher by night. Schutz himself said that he was a better business man because he

was a philosopher and a better philosopher because he was a business man.

Two months before he received his law degree, his teacher, von Mises, got him a

job working with a group of twenty-seven Viennese banks. He supervised ten people, and

he worked on projects involving the reform of the currency for Austria and a loan for the

League of Nations. In 1927 Schutz became a executive officer for the private bank of

Reitler and Co. where he had 60 people to supervise, and Robert Lambert was his boss.

Just before the war he was involved in reorganizing the international interest of R.

Dreyfus and Co. whose interest included Heineken Beer. Schutz had similar positions

with the same companies in Vienna, Paris, and then New York for the rest of his life.

After a six year courtship, Alfred Schutz and Ilse Heime were married in 1926.

It almost sounded like a fairy tale when my mother told me the story of how they

met, how my father and her met. She always dreamed as a little girl that she

would meet her husband on top of a mountain and that is exactly how they did

meet. She was with a group of girls climbing up one side of the mountain, he was
 with a group of boys going up the other side, and they met on top. My mother

made very clear that in those days one socialized in groups and not as a couple.

So, many of these friendships that later became so important were made when my

parents were very, very young.

During the early years of this marriage and before they had children, Ilse accompanied

Alfred on business trips, as well as vacations.

Alfred Schutz was also working towards a book during the 1920s. This recording

dictated years later addresses the most crucial development in that effort.

During my early student days my formal interest was in the philosophical

foundations of the social sciences, especially sociology. At that time, I was under

the spell of Max Weber’s work, especially of his methodological writings. I

recognized, however, very soon that Max Weber had forged the tools he needed

for his concrete research, but that his main problem – understanding the

subjective meaning a social action has for the actor – needed further philosophical

foundation. My teacher in philosophy of law, Hans Kelsen, had guaranteed to find

such a philosophical foundation in the teaching of the Neo-Kantian school, but

neither of the works of Cohen, Natorp, nor of the earlier writings of Ernst Cassirer

opened to me an avenue of approach to the problem I was concerned with.

Bergson’s philosophy impressed me, however, deeply. I was convinced that his

analysis of the structure of consciousness and especially of inner time could be

used as a starting point for an interpretations of the unclarified basic notions of the

social sciences such as meaning, action, expectation, and first of all

intersubjectivity. At that time I was closely connected with the late Felix

Kaufmann who worked on his first book, Logik und Rechtswissenschaft, in which

he successfully attempted to found Kelsen’s pure theory of law upon Husserl’s

 logical and epistemological discoveries. He encouraged me to study the Logische

Untersuchungen, the first volume of the Ideas, the only one then published. This I

did with the greatest care, but in spite of my admiration, I could not find in these

books the bridge to the problems with which I was concerned. Then, in 1928 the

Vorlesungen zur innere Zeitbewusstsein were published. Prepared by my study of

Bergson’s philosophy, I found immediately Husserl’s thought and language

understandable, and when in 1929 the Formal and Transcendental Logic appeared

and placed the problem of intersubjectivity in the focus, I recognized the

importance of Husserl’s thought for all the questions which preoccupied me.

From the outset I was more interest in what Husserl called later on in the

Nachwort of the Ideas, “phenomenology of the natural attitude” than the problems

of transcendental phenomenology. I felt that the main importance of

phenomenology for any attempt of exploring the social reality consisted in the

fact, also established by Husserl, that all knowledge achieved by analysis of the

reduced transcendental sphere remained valid within the natural attitude. In a

book published in 1932, I tried to use Husserl’s phenomenology as I understood it

and Weber’s methodology to take as a starting point for an analysis of the

meaning-structure of the social world.

Schutz sent a copy of his book to Edmund Husserl. Husserl praised it highly and

welcomed three or four visits a year from Schutz, until the great philosopher died in

1938. Alfred Schutz disagreed with some aspects of Husserl’s philosophy, but he

considered himself a phenomenologist for the rest of his life.

Schutz’s masterpiece has five parts. Let me just talk about two of them. One of

them is devoted to subjective meaning, which is a notion Schutz has from the writings of

Max Weber. And it is interesting that Professor Mises assigned Schutz to study those
writings for the private seminar. Subjective meanings are the meanings that objects,

actions, relationships have for actors in the social world; they relate to those actors. I

sometimes like to call them “insider interpretations,” and they then contrast with what

you’d call outsider interpretations which other people have of those objects and actions

and so forth. An example might be useful at this point. Suppose you’re walking in the

country, and you see a man chopping wood. You see what he’s doing, but you don’t

really understand it. It may be he’s a city person out just practicing with an ax. Maybe

he’s chopping wood to store it up for the winter. Maybe he was just in an argument and is

working off his anger. You don’t understand the subjective meaning just because you are

watching him swing the ax against pieces of wood. To understand the action one has to

get at the subjective meaning or insider interpretation that the actor himself has for that

action. This is different often from the interpretations that others have, the outsider

interpretations you may say. How do you get that? Well, the best way is simply to

interview the person, to ask them. But for routine acts you can just be around them and

see the action as it builds up and the action is part of it. So the bottom line in social

science for Alfred Schutz is that the scientist has to grasp the subjective meanings that

actions and objects and so forth have for the social actors. Indeed, when a theory is

developed in social science its terms have to make sense to the actors.

Now before I tell you something more about Schutz’s masterpiece, I have to

mention that he was only able to produce it because his wife, Ilse, had become what she

later called his “scientific secretary.” Ilse took dictation and typed no less than six drafts

before the book was finished, and helped him in this way many times during the rest of

his life. I must also mention Schutz’s Japanese friend, Tomoo Otaka. He was a

philosopher of law who later helped to write Japan’s post-war constitution and is seen

here on a visit with his family to Husserl. He was in Vienna to buy books and provided
the subvention for publishing Schutz’s book, saying the money came from his

government budget, when it was actually his own personal money that he used.

Literally, Schutz’s title in English would be translated as The meaningful

structure of the social world, but this creative translation is not really that misleading. But

what is the most general structure of the social world? In the first place we have to realize

that the social world is made up of others, other people. The Latin word here is socii, and

therefore we have the word social. Second, we might be tempted to divide up the social

world into the living, the dead and the unborn. But Schutz prefers to use words that relate

to a self. Therefore, we have contemporaries who are living, and then we have

predecessors who are dead, and of course we have successors that are not yet born. Next

we can recognize that there are two ways in which we can relate to others. One is, as we

already know, by understanding them. The other is by acting on them, or having an

influence on them. It is interesting that we can influence our successors, for example, by

writing a will, but we can’t understand them; they’re not born yet. In contrast with that,

we can understand our predecessors, if they’ve left us writings or pictures or something,

but we cannot act on them. Their lives are over with; they’re dead.

The interesting thing about people alive at the same time is that there can be

reciprocity. Thus, when we share a place, your are in the same space as well as time, you

can understand other people directly, but they can understand you directly back. Similarly

you can influence them directly, and they can directly influence you back. Others you can

indirectly influence and understand, perhaps over the telephone or by writing a letter, but

there can then be this reciprocity for the people who are alive at the same time that you

don’t have with predecessors and successors. And so for Schutz the structure of the social

world has four regions: predecessors and successors, “consociates” he calls the one’s that

share a place, and contemporaries are the ones who are alive at the same time, but not
sharing same place. This is a funny thing to ask about, perhaps even scientists don’t ask

much about it, but for a philosopher it’s a very good question, and what Schutz has

described holds for any social world whatsoever, not just this one or that one, but for all

social worlds.

In 1932 after his book was out and was attracting more and more attention, Schutz

was traveling back and forth between Vienna and Paris and paid visits to Edmund

Husserl along the way. His daughter Evelyn was born in 1934 and was very much

enjoyed. Intellectually, he was working on his second book. Then, the world in Vienna

came apart, as George Schutz remembers.

I was born at the end of February in Vienna, Austria about a week or two before

the Anschloss when Germany was annexing Austria by force. She was actually

still in the hospital as the troops marched under the window. My mother said that

we should really leave. My father thought that there was no reason to leave

because we hadn’t done anything wrong. And my mother thought that being

Jewish was enough reason. So, I was smuggled out of the country in my sister’s

doll carriage as the family went to Paris in 1938. The quota for Austrians to come

to American actually broke off in the middle of our family so that my mother was

forced to go to the United States to establish residency, and it wasn’t until a year

later, 1939, that we took a ship to immigrate to the United States.

While Ilse went to New York to establish residency for the family, Alfred

remained at his job in Paris. From the extensive files of letters, it seems that he was

nevertheless very busy writing each night to encourage and otherwise help family and

personal and professional friends through that difficult time. First of all there was his and

Ilse’s parents. Others helped before, during, and after the war include his teacher and,

later on, friend, Ludwig von Mises. And then there were Hans Kelsen, Siegfried
Kracauer, Ludwig Landgrebe, Jean Herring, and Jacques Maritain. This telegram conveys

that Schutz had succeeded in arranging a job at Johns Hopkins University for Aron

Gurwitsch whom he had met at Husserl’s urging in Paris in 1935. Having that job made it

possible for Gurwitsch and his wife to immigrate from Paris. In the United States, Schutz

also kept closely in touch with his friends from Vienna The included not only Fritz

Machlup, but also Emmanuel Winternitz, Felix Kaufmann, Eric Voegelin, and his

schoolmate Freiderich von Hayek.

In the United States Schutz’s business career continued with the same private

banking firms and he also continued to study and write at night after his family went to

bed. But in addition he had the opportunity to have a teaching career on the Graduate

Faculty of Political and Social Science at the New School for Social Research. He taught

in the evening so that he could come home, eat with the family, and go back, initially

teaching one course a week and eventually becoming a full professor and chair of both

sociology and philosophy. Schutz became interested in the New School when the

sociologist, Albert Salomon, brought him into the General Seminar, which was

something like what he had experienced with Ludwig von Mises in Vienna two decades

before. He also had his old friend Felix Kaufmann from Vienna who died in 1949 and

whom he replaced in teaching philosophy. Later, Dorion Cairns, whom he had met at

Edmund Husserl’s house during the 1930s, joined him in philosophy.

Alfred Schutz became an American citizen in 1944. He was proud to serve as

consultant to the Roosevelt administration on how the central European economies might

be rebuilt after the war, and he became clearly interested in this new political system. His

research was mostly focused on concrete and practical issues. “The Stranger” describes

what happens when people coming to live in a new country find that their vague,

background knowledge ceases to work, and they must learn a new cultural pattern. I
mentioned earlier that he used his experience as a returning veteran from World War I to

analyze what would happen when the veterans came back from World War II. He even

reflected on whether there can be rationality in the social world.

Concerning the family life, Ilse and Alfred began exposing their young son to

music.

I started with my mother at the piano learning how to read music. And my father

recognized that when I was very young and taught me how to read scores. And

the irony is that when I was six years old I had an accident that made it impossible

for me to read music anymore so I had to learn it in an entirely different way,

which was basically him explaining to me the structure of a piece and then line by

line memorizing it and seeing how it fit together. And an interesting thing that

resulted from that was that if I ever got lost when I was playing a piece, I could

find my way back by remembering the structure that he had taught me. Whereas if

you just learn by ear you would probably have to go back to the beginning and do

the whole thing over again before you could memorize it.

Now let me tell you about Alfred Schutz’s most famous essay, “On Multiple

Realities,” published in 1945. The title comes from the early work of William James.

This is a chart of how four mental attitudes are compared and contrasted by Schutz in six

ways. Let me make only three points with it. In the first place when you are in one

attitude you believe in one set of objects and suspend belief in objects of the other three
attitudes. Epoch‘ is a philosophical word for the suspension of belief. And when you

believe in something, it is a reality for you. And therefore the title of this essay. Thus

when you believe in the world of everyday practical working, your beliefs in objects of

imagination, dreaming, and theorizing are suspended. And when you believe in imagined
objects, for example when you watch a stage play, the world of working is temporarily

suspended, as are also the worlds of dream and theory.

In the second place, what you directly or indirectly believe in, in the attitudes of

practical working and theorizing, is very well organized, while the worlds of imagination

and especially dreaming are not. In the third place, there is what Schutz calls sociality. In

this respect two or more people can act together in working, obviously. And they can also

do so in imagining. For example, as children do in their make-believe games. You can

dream, however, about others, but you cannot dream with others, like you can work and

imagine with others. And theorizing is like dreaming. When you are actually doing it,

you are necessarily alone or solitary. Schutz’s main purpose in this analysis is a

contrasting of the working that goes on in everyday practical life with the theoretical

thinking in science in which the world in constructed. This is a fascinating analysis with

much more detail than I can give you, especially for the philosopher of science.

There were two follow-ups to Schutz’s essay. In the first place he used Cervantes’

novel Don Quixote to illustrate the analysis in it. His Mexican friend, Luis Recasens

Siches, who stands just behind Ortega y Gasset here, translated it, and it was published by

the great phenomenologist, Edwardo Nicol. The other follow-up to “On Multiple

Realities” is this important essay in which Schutz goes on to explore how we use symbols

in art, religion and science in order to believe in objects beyond the reality of every day

life. Schutz’s essays were written over a period of years. Not only did he work on them at

night, but he also worked on them when on vacation with his family.

[FILM]

Another name for the philosophy of social science is methodology. Alfred

Schutz’s methodology focuses on how scientific models of the social world are built up
in thinking. This theorizing, as it can also be called, is done of course in the theoretical

attitude, which we’ve already heard about. Furthermore what it is ultimately concerned

with are those subjective meanings that we have already heard about. Schutz’s best

statement about the methodology of the social sciences was published in 1953 and

reprinted as the first chapter of the first volume of his Collected Papers.

Let me ask you to imagine a familiar example. Suppose there is a store with

several dozen customers milling about and maybe a dozen sales people. The roles aren’t

exactly the same, that the customers and the clerks play. The clerks have to be on the

lookout for shoplifters. The customers don’t do that . They might focus on how one

customer is dressed, how they move about, how they stand, how old they are. In short,

what they do is build up a kind of profile, what Schutz and Max Weber would call an

“ideal type” of the suspicious customer, the customer who might be a shoplifter. There

can be another standpoint on this situation. The social scientist can be interested in how

the sales clerks form their ideal types about suspicious customers. How is that done? You

can interview these sales clerks; you can watch how they behave. Its called participant

observation. Afterwards the social scientists can then think about this and form his own

ideal types about how sales clerks interpret some customers as potential shoplifters. Then

there can be yet another standpoint, which is the standpoint of the methodologist.

Because the methodologist is interested in how the social scientists interpret how the

sales clerk interprets some of the customers. So there are three levels of interpretation

here. And that is basically what a methodologist does according to Alfred Schutz..

In 1955 and 1956, Alfred Schutz’s thinking turned once again to practical issues.

He was invited to a two week institute and also two conferences sponsered by the Jewish

Theological Seminary of America. The concern was not with equality of outcomes, but

rather with equality of opportunity. Schutz’s main contribution is, I believe, his very best
essay. I say this not so much for the focus on real problems, which was already present in

his essays on the stranger, the homecomer, and the well-informed citizen, but because he

focused on relations between social groups. In his previous work the focus was on

individual selves relating to others, not on groups. The participants initially considered

groups based on colonial status, religion, race, even sex. And in the discussions Schutz

found opportunity to comment about groups based on age. So that he was opposed to

what is now called “ageism.”

The participants decided to concentrate on relations between African-Americans

and European-Americans or, in the words of that time, Negroes and Whites. After all

President Eisenhower would send troups to Little Rock, Arkansas the year after in order

to enforce the Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education that began the

racial integration of public schools in America. Thurgood Marshall, who won that case

before the Supreme Court and went on to become a member of that Court, is seated three

seats to the right of Schutz in this picture from a 1955 conference. The participants all

struggled to find a middle ground between abstract, philosophical and theological ideas,

on the one hand, and the common sense ideas that guide people’s behavior in everyday

life, on the other hand. Most of the others began from the abstract principles, but Schutz

was characteristically concerned to approach equality of opportunity from the side of

everyday common sense. He of course relied on the subjective meanings, or insider

interpretations, that individuals belonging to groups share. Furthermore he relied on his

experience in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, which was a very multicultural empire.

There are two sorts of minority groups. One wants to keep its whole way of life,

its entire culture, within the society and still be treated as equal. The members of the

other want to adopt the way of life of the mainstream of the society and become

assimilated. Schutz recognized both types. The first type is today called multiculturalism.
In particular Schutz refers to the contrast between the common sense priorities of

African-Americans and European-Americans that was discovered by Gunner Merdall.

There are thus differences in values and cultural outlooks, but there are also ideas of

equality that had trickled down from philosophy and religion. Finally, Schutz clearly calls

attention to the factor of social class, and thus economic and political power between

groups seeking equality and those in a position to grant it or not. Furthermore, he urges

education to bring about change and reduce social tensions. His thinking in the 1950s is

not irrelevant today.

Alfred Schutz was of service to the phenomenological movement throughout the

time he lived in America. Much of that twenty years is documented in his

correspondance with his friend, Aron Gurwitsch. Along with Dorion Cairns and Aron

Gurwitsch and also Herbert Spiegleberg, he was a founding member of the international

phenomenological society under the leadership of Marvin Farber in 1940 and active in

editing his journal, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, thereafter. Soon after

the war he began returning to Europe regularly on business and thereby participated in

the development of phenomenology in Europe. He helped Father Van Breda develop the

Husserl Archives, a branch of which was established in Schutz’s memory at the New

School in 1969. He accepted a commision from Maurice Merleau-Ponty to write on Max

Scheler’s work, and he attended various conferences on phenomenology. But when

Schutz was in his late fifties, his health began to decline. Just why he drew this self-

portrait in front of his bookcase one evening at home is not known.

Let me convey two personal remembrances of Alfred Schutz, the first more

formal than the second. Schutz’s student Fred Kersten will read from the obituary that

Aron Gurwitsch published in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

 On May 20, 1959 Alfred Schutz died in New York City. Alfred Schutz was a

person of an almost unique kind. He had a large variety of interests, the widest

general culture, a cosmopolitan outlook. Very rarely indeed does one encounter a

man of such thoroughgoing learning and perfect competence in highly diverse

fields as Schutz had in philosophy, the social sciences, music, and literature.

Whatever he undertook he did from the perspective of his broad and

encompassing knowledge. His mind was as penetrating, sharp, and keen as his

heart was warm and generous. There was something radiant in him. He

shouldered responsibilities that often seemed to surpass the capacities of a single

man. The universally respected scholar of international reputation was at the same

time, an urbane man of the world, a gentleman with all the nobility of character

that this word connotes.

Over twenty years later, Alfred Schutz’s personality remained especially vivid for

his wife, his son, and his close friend, Machla.

He would tell jokes for hours and he left sometimes in tears.

He loved his own jokes much better than the jokes of other people.

And we’d laugh.

And laugh.

And the happiness with which he’d laugh, it was really touching that with

all his pessimism and depression that he’d came to tell jokes, he was a

different man.
 I think people responded to his laughter almost more than to the jokes

themselves.

Exactly, correct.

Because of the extensive efforts of Alfred Schutz’s widow, Ilse, in the decades after his

death, his work is known today in practically every nation on earth. His daughter, Evelyn

Schutz Lang, continues this effort.

Posthumous publications of Alfred Schutz:

On Phenomenology and Social Relations

Reflections on the Problem of Relevance

Strukturen der Lebenswelt

Life Forms and Meaning Structure

The Theory of Social Action

Some translations:

The Phenomenology of the Social World

Fenomenologie del mundo social

Alfred Schutz Gesammelte Aufsatze

La fenomenologia del mondo sociale

El problema de la realidad social

Hverdagslivets sociologi

Alfred Schutz Talcott Parsons Zur Theorie sozialen Handelns

A Fenomenologia a Tarsadalom-Tudomanyban
Some Monographs and Volumes of Essays on Schutz:

Phenomenology and Social Reality

Phenomenological Sociology

Alfred Schutz: An Intellectual Biography

Alfred Schutz: Appraisals and Developments

Worldly Phenomenology

Neue Beitrage zur Rezeption seines Werkes

Philosophers in Exile

La Communication en la vida Cotidiana

Phenomenologie en sciences sociales