Received: from acs4.bu.edu (ACS4.BU.EDU [128.197.154.40]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id QAA05251 for ; Thu, 15 May 1997 16:30:17 -0600 (MDT) Received: (from conroyt@localhost) by acs4.bu.edu (8.8.4/) id SAA160334; Thu, 15 May 1997 18:29:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 18:29:10 -0400 (EDT) From: thomas conroy Sender: thomas conroy Reply-To: thomas conroy Subject: Re: Ethnomethodology To: Thomas F Brown cc: Sociology Graduate Students -- International In-Reply-To: <97May13.203642edt.923-2@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 May 1997, Thomas F Brown wrote: TB: Of what use is ethnomethodology? TC: It's useful for deep sociological analysis which avoids neo-positivist assumptions. TB: What sorts of findings has EM produced that could not be obtained otherwise? Ethno, which calls the results of its studies "demonstrations" rather than "findings" (so as to differentiate itself from what it calls "formal analytic" sociology and its orientation toward the logic of experimental methods) is useful for showing how the facticity of social order (ie., the sorts of conceptual understandings of social order which are used to theoretically highlight them) rests upon a series of taken-for-granted, "seen but unnoticed" intersubjectively coordinated practical actions (including the action of accounting) and schemes of practical action. For example, the fundamental sociological concept of the "role" is a specification of what ethnomethodologists call "membership categories." Membership categories are ordered by a series of constitutive rules for their use. Whereas sociological analysts may seek to determine and to specify the roles of, let's say, some organization, the study of membership categorization, of the rules and "devices" by which they are used could be quite useful toward uncovering how users of various role terms might purposively shift back and forth, and to do so based not on "subjective meanings" of terms, but instead on the social logic of how categories are used. To speak of roles is, in a sense, to be employing analysts' constructs; that may be useful for certain purposes, but to seek out membership categories is to locate something which is a phenomenon in its own right. TB: How can it help me understand the world? TC: By showing how practical action is socially organized. TB: How is it superior or distinct from other sociological methods in that regard? I don't want to claim that it is superior in toto; it's simply a superior way of studying "ethno methods." It is however distinctive in such ways as (a.) offering different forms of explanation (procedural rather than quasi-causal or probabilistic) (b.) remaining "indifferent" to the distinction between sociological and common sense explanations/accounts of phenomena, (c.) preferring to demonstrate rather than to represent social order, through a detailed analysis of mundane, concrete examples (d.) being disconcerned with "subjective meaning" and (e.) being, in its aim, anti-dualist (ie., being indifferent toward such frameworks as - objective/subjective, macro/micro, causal/interpretive, etc. Of course, I should add that it often gets lumped in with the rest of "interpretive" or "interactionist" sociology, but the differences between it and the rest of them are profound. TB: It strikes me so far as trivial in these respects, although perhaps more information would change my view. TC: Anyway, what is motivating your questions? I'd like to know more about how you'd want to use it. TB: 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? You may remain unsatisfied. However, I'd recommend the book ETHNOMETHODOLOGY AND THE HUMAN SCIENCES, 1991, Cambridge University Press, edited by Graham Button. It will offer a careful elaboration of many of the points I've made above (as well as a bunch more that I haven't even touched upon). The theme of the book is "respecification," and the studies show how such topics as logic, ethics, measurement, language, culture, etc., might be made available for seeing them as bound to systems of practical action. TB: 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. Well, people often associate the breaching experiments with ethno because they are vivid. Of course, the Milgrim experiments - which have attained exemplar status in experimental social psychology - strike me as no less cruel and perverse. But, as a student of ethno for more than 10 years, I can assure you that there is much more to it than simply one set of demonstrations. You might also want to check out the "ethno hotline". You can access it at: `ethno@cios.llc.rpi.edu' TB: 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. I'm glad to hear your positive attitude and hope that my comments have helped and encouraged you to look further. Cheers Tom Conroy Sociology Boston University