Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:36:40 -0400
From: Thomas F Brown <tombrown@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: Ethnomethodology
To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu
Message-id: <97May13.203642edt.923-2@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>> Of what use is ethnomethodology? 
>It's useful for deep sociological analysis which avoids neo-positivist 
>assumptions.

What sorts of findings has EM produced that could not be obtained otherwise?

>> How can it help me understand the world? 
>By showing how practical action is socially organized. 

How is it superior or distinct from other sociological methods
in that regard?

>> It strikes me so far as trivial in these respects, although perhaps more
>> information would change my view.
>Anyway, what is motivating your questions? I'd like to know more about 
>how you'd want to use it. 

The problem is that I have no motivation to use it at all until I see
what it's good for. What findings can it produce that are otherwise
unobtainable or more difficult to obtain? 

My exposure to EM is minimal. I have read about the breaching (correct spelling)
experiments, which struck me as perverse, borderline cruel, and ultimately 
unproductive.  I have not been motivated to learn more, although I try to 
remain open-minded since I am fairly ignorant about the topic.


PS: Garfinkel wrote a wonderful article in the mid-50s on degradation rituals.
It was beautifully ironic in that it was obviously an ethnographical take on
the McCarthy hearings even though it was written as theory and never once 
mentioned a specific social setting. So having seen that he can turn out 
great work like that, I actually do remain open to being convinced with 
regards to the EM stuff.