<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>This article focuses on possible convergences between phenomenology and anthropology and underlines their contributions to the analysis of a specific topic. In its reconstructive dimension it departs from Edmund Husserl’s positions in the letter he addressed to Lucien Lévy-Bruhl in 1935, in particular on the relationship between humanity and the surrounding word <italic>(Umwelt)</italic> and on the opposition between historical societies and primitive ahistorical societies. After having noted some critical points emerging from Husserl’s considerations, this text retraces some of its repercussions on the thought of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jacques Derrida, whose diverging interpretations open up different ways of examining the relationship between the respective phenomenological and anthropological perspectives. Finally, with the aim of rethinking the contributions of these two fields to address the problem of the co-participation and the differentiations between the archaic and the current in descripted social structures by Lévy-Bruhl, this text turns to the specific temporality of totemic presentifications, which should become phenomenologically more detailed.</p>
</abstract>

This article focuses on possible convergences between phenomenology and anthropology and underlines their contributions to the analysis of a specific topic. In its reconstructive dimension it departs from Edmund Husserl’s positions in the letter he addressed to Lucien Lévy-Bruhl in 1935, in particular on the relationship between humanity and the surrounding word (Umwelt) and on the opposition between historical societies and primitive ahistorical societies. After having noted some critical points emerging from Husserl’s considerations, this text retraces some of its repercussions on the thought of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jacques Derrida, whose diverging interpretations open up different ways of examining the relationship between the respective phenomenological and anthropological perspectives. Finally, with the aim of rethinking the contributions of these two fields to address the problem of the co-participation and the differentiations between the archaic and the current in descripted social structures by Lévy-Bruhl, this text turns to the specific temporality of totemic presentifications, which should become phenomenologically more detailed.

Temporalidade das Presentificações Totêmicas. Na Sequência de Posições e Repercussões da Carta de Husserl a Lévy-Bruhl

Phainomenon

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This article focuses on possible convergences between phenomenology and anthropology and underlines their contributions to the analysis of a specific topic. In...

Temporalidade das Presentificações Totêmicas. Na Sequência de Posições e Repercussões da Carta de Husserl a Lévy-Bruhl

Publicado en línea: 11 jun 2023

Páginas: 73 - 100

Recibido: 21 feb 2023

Aceptado: 09 abr 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/phainomenon-2023-0005

Palabras clave
Phenomenology, Anthropology, Temporality, Totemism, Presentification, Lévy-Bruhl

© 2023 Alice Mara Serra, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Temporalidade das Presentificações Totêmicas. Na Sequência de Posições e Repercussões da Carta de Husserl a Lévy-Bruhl

Publicado en línea: 11 jun 2023

Páginas: 73 - 100

Recibido: 21 feb 2023

Aceptado: 09 abr 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/phainomenon-2023-0005

Palabras clavePhenomenology, Anthropology, Temporality, Totemism, Presentification, Lévy-Bruhl

© 2023 Alice Mara Serra, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Palabras clave
Phenomenology, Anthropology, Temporality, Totemism, Presentification, Lévy-Bruhl