Ethnomethodology
 |
| http://pbmo.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/ |
Outlined by Garfinkel, Ethnomethodology involves the study of everyday interactions by individuals that creates social order.
I'm not aiming to bore anyone by speaking academically about the word ethnomethodology, the word itself scared me at first, but the concept is much simpler than the spelling.
Garfinkel believes that in society there are certain rules that create social order within interactions. We follow these rules when we interact with one another in a hope that we maintain a social order. Like i have shown in the picture above, walking into a bathroom and standing right next to someone in the cubicle when there are many free, is not seen as polite or an accepted interaction. Garfinkel explains this concept by conducting experiments in the form of games. Like Andrew did in the lecture - (starting a game of naughts and crosses and then erasing the beginning to start again). The 'fully public' nature of games are represented through a range of basic rules that are to be followed to complete the game. Garfinkel explains that in these experiments, the relationship between the 'rules' and the organised events are strongly cognitive - the rules applied are only relevant to the event that is occurring within the interaction. These experiments are also taken out in the social sphere, I tried the same experiment that was shown in the reading on my sister. Asking more questions than necessary in one interaction makes the other person feel frustrated because their understanding of social order is being taken away.
I looked at another publication 'Social science and conversation analysis' by David Silverman which also drew on a lot of Garfinkel's work but also gave some insight into conversational analysis's. It was interesting to find the article as it stated that conversational analysis shares common origins of ethnomethodology. Conversational analysis however took a formal approach to analysing micro instances of naturally occurring talk (Silverman D 1998), which will be helpful in researching the further assignments in this course.
 |
| Picture : http://www.ourspacer.com/graphics/you're-doing-it-wrong-demotivational-posters/page02/ |
References
Heritage, John. 1984. “The Morality of Cognition.” Pp. 75-102 in Garfinkel and
Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Silverman, David (1998) Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for this example. This helped me to wrap my head around the ideas that both Heritage and Andrew were trying to explain to me in a different language at times. This concept clearly is a disruption to the social order and expectations of those involved in an interaction. The 'scripts' that are naturally embedded into us expect us to act in a particular way, so when there are 5 other urinals that can be used and someone chooses the one right next to a man already in the bathroom, makes the situation awkward as it is not what is believed to be acceptable.
Glad it helped Jessica, it's a strange example, but it explains pretty clearly about the etiquette that is acceptable or not acceptable in social interactions :)
ReplyDeleteSocial order is produced by the ‘rules’ in life. These rules guide our behaviour and our knowledge of societal expectations. For example, when walking in an elevator, it is socially acceptable to stand at the opposite corner of the person standing in the elevator, not right next to them, otherwise the situation becomes awkward for everyone in the elevator because it is like you’re messing with the social order. Another example is driving on the left hand side of the road. If one car decided to drive on the right hand side, then that would likely cause a car accident and it would mess with the social order. Josh used public toilets as an example of social order-you walk to the toilet which is at the far end of the other person’s cubicle. It made me think of other instances in everyday life, like queuing in the shops or for a bus.
ReplyDeleteAs Garfinkel argues, games have a time structure and the players know what it will take for the game to be complete. When you play a game, you are expected to follow the rules. Garfinkel argues that, similarly, in everyday life you are expected to follow rules of social interaction and social order. For example, when someone says “hello”, they expect the other person to say hi back, otherwise it becomes really awkward. Garfinkel’s breaching experiments demonstrate this point really well. For example, when one student’s husband said that he was tired and she questioned him further, “how are you tired? Physically, mentally or just bored?” and he got frustrated. He had expected his wife to know what he was talking about without further questioning it. Josh also tried this experiment on his sister, asking her more questions than what she thought was necessary and she also got frustrated.