One is Not Born, But Rather Becomes Normal: Towards a Critical Phenomenology of the Lifeworld
This paper critiques Husserl's generative phenomenology for its Eurocentric and normalizing tendencies while arguing that a critical phenomenology of the lifeworld can be developed by reinterpreting its relational and generative dimensions through an explicit analysis of power relations and intergenerational temporality.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine a world where the ground beneath your feet suddenly shifts. A parent is taken from their home by mistake; a student is arrested for speaking out; a person is told their very identity no longer exists. In these moments, the familiar rules that guide our daily lives—the unspoken agreements about who belongs, what is safe, and how we treat one another—crumble. We lose our bearings. We are left asking who is next, and whether safety means anything at all anymore. This is not just a political crisis; it is a crisis of the "lifeworld," a concept used by philosophers to describe the shared background of habits, traditions, and norms that make our experience of reality possible. For decades, the philosopher Edmund Husserl argued that this lifeworld is not a static stage but a living history, constantly shaped by the past and open to change. However, his work has long been criticized for suggesting that some cultures or ways of being are "normal" while others are merely strange deviations, a view that can justify excluding those who do not fit the mold.
A new analysis by philosopher Lisa Guenther revisits Husserl's writings from the 1930s to ask a difficult question: Can we use his ideas to understand how power works to define what is "normal," and how we might break free from those definitions? Guenther does not simply repeat old arguments; she digs into Husserl's unpublished notes on how we relate to one another to find three different ways his thinking can be understood. She finds that while one part of his work does lean toward a Eurocentric view that tries to make everyone fit into a single, dominant culture, other parts of his thinking actually offer a powerful tool for resisting that very pressure. By focusing on the moment of birth and the status of the child, Guenther argues that the lifeworld is not a finished product but a continuous process of becoming. She suggests that the very act of being born introduces a necessary "anomaly" or difference that keeps the world from becoming rigid and dead.
The paper begins by examining how we understand our place in the world through the contrast between what is familiar and what is strange. Husserl called our own cultural home the "homeworld" and everything outside it the "alienworld." Guenther points out that Husserl sometimes wrote as if our homeworld was the center of everything, implying that other cultures should eventually adopt our ways. This "expansionist" tendency, she argues, is dangerous because it treats difference as a problem to be solved rather than a vital part of human life. If we believe our way of living is the only true way, we risk turning the world into a place where anyone who is different is seen as a threat. However, Guenther also finds a "relational" side to Husserl's thought. He acknowledged that our homeworld only makes sense because it exists alongside other worlds. Without the strange and the unfamiliar, our own familiar life would have no shape. This insight supports the idea that a healthy world must be a mix of many different cultures, not a single, uniform empire.
Yet, the most significant part of Guenther's discovery lies in how these ideas apply to individuals, specifically children. Husserl noted that not everyone in a society is treated as a full, "normal" participant. In his view, only mature adults who fit the established patterns of behavior are seen as having the authority to help shape the world. Children, the mentally ill, and those who do not fit social expectations are often excluded from this power, even though they live in the same world. Guenther connects this to the famous idea that "one is not born, but rather becomes" a certain kind of person. She argues that we are all born as "anomalies"—strangers who do not yet know the rules. We are only taught to become "normal" through a long process of learning, often enforced by rewards and punishments. This process is not natural; it is a social construction that decides who gets to belong and who gets pushed aside.
Guenther suggests that this process of becoming normal is actually the key to understanding how the world can change. Because every person starts as an anomaly, the lifeworld is never truly finished. The arrival of a new generation, with their own unique perspectives and potential to break the rules, ensures that the world remains open to renewal. If we only focused on stability and keeping things exactly as they are, the world would eventually suffocate. But if we embrace the fact that we are all born as strangers who must learn to navigate a world we did not create, we realize that the future is not predetermined. The tension between the need for stability and the need for diversity is not a flaw; it is the engine that keeps human society alive.
The paper concludes by applying these ideas to our current moment of crisis. When authoritarian leaders try to tighten the rules and exclude anyone who does not fit their narrow vision of normality, they are attacking the very structure that allows the world to renew itself. Guenther argues that we cannot simply hold on to the shreds of stability that remain. Instead, we must recognize that the "anomaly" of birth—the fact that we are all new and different—is a permanent feature of the human condition. It is a source of power that cannot be fully suppressed. By understanding that the world is built on the interplay between the familiar and the strange, the normal and the anomalous, we can begin to imagine a different kind of future. The task is not to return to a perfect past, but to actively participate in the endless work of relearning the world together, balancing the need for order with the necessity of difference. In this way, the crisis of the lifeworld becomes an opportunity to build a world that is truly shared by everyone, not just those who happen to fit the current mold.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.