Correspondence of lifeworlds as ’growing older together’

Ingold’s concept of human correspondence, which he suggests as a replacement for intersubjectivity (Ingold 2017: 13), builds on Schütz’s notion of the intersubjective we-relation, which Schütz also describes as growing older together (1962: 16-17). For Schütz “the reciprocity of

perspectives” and “the interchangeability of standpoints” define intersubjectivity and “common-sense” thinking (1970: 183–184). Schütz considers the intersubjective world of everyday life (the lifeworld) to be a fundamental ‘reality’. Schütz’s concept of a ‘lifeworld’ has a number of

different social dimensions, each with its own spatio-temporal structures. The individual being is depictured as the centre within his or her own lifeworld. I have myself drawn and will later apply this sphere illustration of a we-relation (3.3.2a) as a reference, where ‘oneself’ is at the centre of a three-dimensional sphere consisting of temporal, spatial and social/biographical axes. This illustration is a very simplistic interpretation of Schultz’s complex understanding of lifeworlds as consisting of different social dimensions and ‘multiple realities’. But it is ideal for my purpose of (later) illustrating how worlds are made within co-design and how we ought to navigate differently whether we are deconstructing a fractiverse of world versions, constructing situated practices within a one-world, or reconstructing a multiverse of how worlds ought to be. This simplification will do for now. The illustration below is not trying to depicture nor simplify Schütz’s

intersubjectivity of lifeworlds, but the three-dimensional way of positioning oneself in a world corresponding to growing older together with others and in relation to others has been with me as a visual vignette and an expression of spatial and temporal translations, visualising the social space I experienced – a world of intersubjectivity as Schütz’s vivid presentation of pure we-relationships;

relations where consociates are mutually involved in each other’s biography when sharing a community of space and time as when “they are growing old together” (Schütz 1962: 16-17).

Ill 3.3.2a: Growing older together;

A we-relation where consociates are sharing not only time and space, but also biographical stories.

Schütz’s concept of lifeworlds may seem a bit altmodisch⁷⁸ when designers need to recognise, describe and work with the social interactions of change and transitions. But the social lifeworlds consisting of multiple realities within sphere and globe views have worked as a reference in my analysis of the different roles and relationships and the correspondence between I and Thou, the

‘we’ and the ‘us’ that I have mainly come to know through Performance Studies as multiple relationships between the me and the not-not me and between performers and the audience also temporarily coining a communitas of ‘us’.

Ingold has further portrayed a ‘new theory’ of social life on human correspondence. Starting from the premise that every living being should be thought of as a bundle of lines of

78 As ‘Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt’ was written in 1932, translated to English in 1967 as ‘Phenomenology of the Social World’. And ‘On Multiple Realities’ was published in 1945 (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schutz/#Bib)

relationships, in joining with one another these lifelines comprise a meshwork of knots and loops in answering to one another. They co-respond and correspond similar to Schneider’s gestural response-ability (2017b) and reenactment as call and response (2017a) and Lehmann’s politics of perception as an ‘aesthetic of responsibility’ or response-ability (2006: 185). Ingold proposes the term of correspondence to connote these ‘lifelines’ affiliation, and states that correspondence rests on three essential principles: One of habit (rather than volition), a second one of agencing (rather than agency) and a third one of attentionality (rather than intentionality). Ingold explains habit as ‘doing undergoing’, agencing as a process in which the ‘I’ emerges as a question, and attentionality as a resonant coupling of concurrent movements (Ingold 2017).

Ill 3.3.2b: Correspondence of multiple worldviews An approach of worldmaking consists of a

correspondence of ‘multiple worldviews’. The illustration prompts me of the multiple worldviews between Ingold’s globe view, sphere view and moving in-between the inside and the outside of the dome perspective. It is further inspired by Goodman’s worldmaking practice of making world versions and Schütz’s lifeworlds consisting of multiple realities between and among consociates and contemporaries – some within reach, others beyond reach, and the social space that occurs when I and Thou share a community of ‘time and space’ as relations start to emerge between I and Thou, as a We-relationship of

‘growing older together’.

3.3.3 From dialectic to dialogical design roles – caused by multiple ways of knowing There is a reason why I am bringing in Goodman’s worldmaking and Ingold’s topology of the globe and spheres and how we encounter the environment of worlds that we both exhabit, through map making representations of landscapes; inhabit, through situated lived dwelling practices within landscapes and habit, with socially skilled practices, situated within spatial and temporal landscapes as ‘taskscapes’. The reason is that they have had a huge impact in relation to how I understand the performances of the lived lifeworlds of partners engaged in making worlds of Everyday Theatres. They are also a foundation for a more collaborative design praxis, i.e. the situated ways social designers engage as co-designers.

I remember “reading” the children´s drawings of how the two boys Ethan and Darcy position themselves differently “in the world” surrounded by their everyday environment, in-between such ephemeral phenomena as skies, houses, the ground, wind and weather (see ill 3.3.3a). When I read the text I literally found myself positioned ‘somewhere’ neither here nor

there; in an airplane in-between skies, wind and weather. This situated experience made an impact of considering the positions of how we relate to the environments around us when co-designing, in the liminal position when, in 2010, I had left my everyday setting at the Design School in Copenhagen and just before landing in Aberdeen to spend a week with Tim Ingold and a diverse group of anthropologists and designers at a Design Anthropology PhD course.

Being detached both from my everyday environment and encountering different ‘worlds of others’ made me reflect on my designerly practice balancing such unstable interstice between