Bøger af Johannes Lenhard

The new series of Ideen&Argumente subscribes to the ideal of a pluralist and open culture of argument and debate and presents well-produced volumes on topics and questions which make substantive or methodologically important contributions to contemporary philosophy. The publications are designed to effect a productive synergy between the Anglo-Saxon and Continental European philosophical traditions. Ideen&Argumente provides a platform for outstanding systematically oriented original editions and German first editions from all areas of Theoretical and Practical Philosophy. A welcome is extended to programmatic monographs from whatever philosophical direction. The aim is to highlight anew the thematic and methodological richness of contemporary philosophy.

Essay from the year 2013 in the subject Ethnology / Cultural Anthropology, grade: 64%, University of Cambridge, language: English, abstract: As Geertz himself has recognised, ¿one cannot write a ¿General Theory of Cultural Interpretation¿¿ (TD, 26). It might therefore be wrong right from the beginning to talk about his ¿project¿. Accepting this notion for a moment, one has furthermore to acknowledge that Geertz has only picked up different traditions ¿ namely those of Weber, Boas and Kluckhohn in the social sciences and Wittgenstein and Husserl in philosophy ¿ and ¿melted¿ them into a distinguishable whole (Ortner, 1984). If one also dismisses this historical analysis for a moment and takes Geertz project of an ¿interpretive anthropology¿ as a given whole, a description develops around his notions of semiotic culture, thick description, small matters and native narratives.It is in those ideas that one finds both Geertz¿ strengths and weaknesses as I argue below. Arguing both in abstract, theoretical terms and in relation to Geertz¿ major ethnographies ¿ Negara, Meaning and order in Moroccan society and Deep play ¿ the significance of the interpretive project is undeniable but not without limitations: Does the interpretation of culture as a text make sense? How does Geertz link his focus on ¿small matters¿ towards an analysis of culture? Is it possible to deny theory?

In this ethnographic study, Johannes Lenhard observes the daily practices, routines and techniques of people who are sleeping rough on the streets of Paris. The book focusses on their survival practises, their short-term desires and hopes, how they earn money through begging, how they choose the best place to sleep at night and what role drugs and alcohol play in their lives. The book also follows people through different institutional settings, including a homeless day centre, a needle exchange, a centre for people with alcohol problems and a homeless shelter.