Advertisement

From Durkheim to Garfinkel: Social Facts and Social Order

  • Feifei Zhou
Chapter
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter will position ethnomethodology in the praxis of sociology and phenomenology to trace Garfinkel’s theoretical heritage and highlight his intellectual innovation. With this historical investigation, I will outline the pathways along which individual social actor’s order-producing and -maintaining work (including but not limited to languaging and communicating efforts) comes to take centre stage in Garfinkel’s thought. Ethnomethodology, even in its heyday, was never recognised as the mainstream of sociological thinking. However, as accounted by Garfinkel (2002), ethnomethodology claims to be the heir to Emile Durkheim—the father of sociology, and its project is to carry on with the study of ‘social facts’ which is famously contained in the aphorism by Durkheim (1895/1982, p. 60): ‘The first and fundamental rule [of sociology] is to consider social facts as things’. There are many different interpretations of Garfinkel’s program and its status in both sociology and philosophy; my view is that, despite that ethnomethodology represents a radical way to do sociology, its concern is still a sociological one though phenomenology fuelled its innovative power. I will explain this in the following.

References

  1. Atkinson, J. M. (1978). Discovering suicide: Studies in the social organization of sudden death. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Durkheim, E. (1895). Les règles de la méthode sociologique [English version: Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method (W. D. Halls, Trans.)]. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Durkheim, E. (1897). Le suicide [English version: Durkheim, E. (1952). Suicide: A study in sociology (J. A. Spaulding, & G. Simpson, Trans.)]. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. Eberle, T. S. (2012). Phenomenological life-world analysis and ethnomethodology’s program. Human Studies, 35(2), 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garfinkel, H. (1952). The perception of the other: A study in social order. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  6. Garfinkel, H. (1967a). Practical sociological reasoning: Some features in the work of the Los Angeles suicide prevention center. In E. S. Schneidman (Ed.), Essays in self-destruction. New York: International Science Press.Google Scholar
  7. Garfinkel, H. (1967b). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Garfinkel, H. (1991). Respecification: Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society, (I) – an announcement of studies. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 10–19). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garfinkel, H. (2002). In A. W. Rawls (Ed.), Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkeim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hilbert, R. A. (1992). The classical roots of ethnomethodology: Durkheim, Weber, and Garfinkel. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  12. Husserl, E. (1969). Formale und transzendentale logik. Versuch einer kritik der logischen vernunft [English version: Husserl, E. (1969). Formal and transcendental logic (D. Cairns, Trans.)]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  13. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action. Cambridge, MA: University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lynch, M. (2004). Misreading Schutz: A response to Dennis on ‘lynch on Schutz on science’. Theory & Science, 5(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  15. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1973). Phenomenology and the sciences of man. In M. A. Natanson (Ed.), Phenomenology and the social sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 47–108). Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Natanson, M. A. (Ed.). (1973). Phenomenology and the social sciences. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action. A study in social theory with special reference to a group of recent European writers. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Psathas, G. (1977). Ethnomethodology as a phenomenological approach in the social sciences. In R. Zaner & D. Ihde (Eds.), Interdisciplinary phenomenology. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus-Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  19. Psathas, G. (1989). Phenomenology and sociology. Theory and research. Boston: The Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  20. Psathas, G. (2004). Alfred Schutz’s influence on American sociologists and sociology. Human Studies, 27(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Psathas, G. (2009). The correspondence of Alfred Schutz and Harold Garfinkel: What was the “terra incognita” and the “treasure island”? In H. Nasu, L. Embree, G. Psathas, & I. Srubar (Eds.), Alfred schutz and his intellectual partners (pp. 401–433). Konstanz, Germany: UVK.Google Scholar
  22. Rogers, M. F. (1983). Sociology, ethnomethodology, and experience: A phenomenological critique. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Schütz, A. (1945). On multiple realities. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 5(4), 533–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schütz, A. (1962). In M. Natanson (Ed.), Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  25. Sharrock, W. (2004). What Garfinkel makes of Schutz: The past, present and future of an alternate, asymmetric and incommensurable approach to sociology. Theory & Science, 5(1), 1–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Feifei Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishLingnan UniversityHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations