Ethnomethodology
From CS260SP09
Readings
Chapters 1 and 2 of "Studies in Ethnomethodology" Harold Garfinkel, Prentice-Hall, 1967,
Supplementary Readings
Discussions
Please post your critiques/commments on the required readings below. To do that, first login by using your user name and password, then click the "edit" tab on the top part of this page (between the "discussion" page and the "history" page), New to wikis? Read the Wiki editing guide. . Hint - Please put a whole line == ~~~~ == (literally) at the beginning of your submitted critique, so the wiki system will index, sign and date your submission automatically.
KetrinaYim 11:24, 26 April 2009 (PDT)
I found it fascinating (if not unsettling) the kinds of responses evoked when people are asked to clarify commonplace sayings. In reading the excerpts of the conversations between the students and the subjects they interacted with, I was somewhat appalled at the hostility and rudeness that ensued when the subjects were forced to explain what they felt should have been obvious. The anxiety the inquiries sometimes created was also interesting. I thought, "How could harmless inquiries like that cause such a reaction?" It is true that it can be frustrating when people don't seem to understand what you're saying, especially when it's been said (seemingly) very clearly. I know I'd probably lose patience at some point. But does it really warrant responses like "Drop dead!" or "Frankly, I don't give a damn how you are."?
People seem to have no trouble explaining things they know that aren't necessarily common knowledge. But when they have to explain what they know are commonplace remarks, suddenly things are different. What makes it different? The fact that they've never had to explain it before? The idea that something must be fundamentally wrong with the inquirer if they need clarification on something so obvious?
David (Tavi) Nathanson 03:09, 27 April 2009 (PDT)
In response to Ketrina's question (why are people okay with explaining things that aren't necessarily common knowledge, but not okay with explaining commonplace remarks?), I think the key, at least in the context of these chapters, is the experimenters' sudden change in character. If I normally talk to my friend a certain way, but suddenly he asks me to clarify something that I always say (when I *know* he knows what I mean), I will assume that he is "messing with me" (or that he has some other strange motive that I'm unaware of). I might, therefore, respond rudely back to him. If strangers normally treat me one way, but suddenly a stranger treats me differently (i.e. by asking me to clarify the obvious), I will assume the stranger has some sort of motive that I'm unaware of. While I personally might not respond rudely, people's rude reactions seem to have stemmed from fear and confusion regarding the motives of the experimenters.
Kenrick Kin 09:41, 27 April 2009 (PDT)
Trying to explain common knowledge can sometimes be like explaining the definition of a simple word. When something is already simple and "obvious" how do you go about defining it in an even more simple and more obvious way? It can be more difficult than it would appear. Being asked questions that have obvious answers or answers that are already implied can be annoying, because it interrupts the flow of the conversation. If you have to stop and answer every unimportant and irrelevant question to the topic at hand, it can be really frustrating. And like David said, it could cause the person to wonder if the questioner has an ulterior motive to why he's asking asking all these questions. I don't know about you, but I find making small talk to be tiring. Some things you just say to fill up time or to be polite, like asking how someone is doing. And if that person turns it into something more than it is by being "difficult" then it becomes grating. I wouldn't tell someone to "drop dead" but I would certainly feel exasperated.
Seth Horrigan 09:45, 27 April 2009 (PDT)
Interestingly, in the example that the author gave to his students, without the context of the rest of the conversation, I interpreted "Dana succeeded in putting a penny in a parking meter today without being picked up" very differently. Granted, at the time this was written, "picked up" might not have the same colloquial meaning it does today, but I initially interpreted it as something to the effect of "Dana, my wife, is a very beautiful women and seems to naturally attract men to the point that it bothers me. In fact, it seems that she cannot walk 20 seconds from the car without some guy starting to flirt aggressively with her. Happily, today, she managed to make it from the car to the parking meter and back without any such event, but that just reinforces in my mind how protective I must be of her." Of course, adding in (on the next line) that the other actor in the conversation is the wife and "Dana" is a male, reveals this to be completely incorrect and requires a dramatic adjustment of perception.
Nicholas Kong 10:06, 27 April 2009 (PDT)
As I understand it, from Garfinkel's chapter, ethnomethodology seems to be a process of elucidating and explicitly delineating the context of a conversation (as Hall described, perhaps) and the common ground between the participants. A relation could also be drawn to Goffman's frames: ethnomethodology uncovers the rules that govern behavior within individual frames. It was interesting to read about how frustrated the students became when asked to describe in excruciating detail the details two people shared in a conversation. Some context seems so basic and ingrained that finding the baseline level of detail was difficult if not impossible. Had this exercise been done with a conversation between two members of an entirely different culture, though, then it would likely not have been as arduous, as what may be unconscious to the interlocutors becomes novel to the observers. I think that, in the end, is Garfinkel's point: we must step back and experience the quotidian as exotic. Everything old is new again, perhaps?
Seth Horrigan 11:30, 27 April 2009 (PDT)
Since we are somewhat discussing ethnographic methods and recording events from an "objective" perspective, Miner's Nacirema example is very instructive: https://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/miner.html
Priyanka Reddy 22:09, 27 April 2009 (PDT)
The discussion about why people get so frustrated when asked to explain something so commonplace reminds me about the time in math class when we were asked to prove that a number was even/odd or that 1+1=2. I remember being incredibly frustrated when asked to do that because it just seemed to obvious I had no idea where to even begin explaining it. So, this is very similar to what Kenrick mentioned about it being really hard to explain something that's so simple in even simpler terms.
I have to agree with Ketrina in that I also thought the reactions were really extreme for something as small as asking more explicit questions. However, I think a confused reaction when asked by strangers is valid, but I think that if someone I knew fairly well asked me more detailed questions, I might be flattered that they're taking the time to ask me more than "how are you doing?"
Simon Tan 19:23, 28 April 2009 (PDT)
@everyone: This kind of hostility is exactly what Garfinkel/Schutz wanted to see in their experiments. Also, remember that the theory is that the more in touch with the morality of everyday life a person is, the more perturbed and bewildered they will be when the background expectancies of everyday life are breached. So the more hostile comments may have been from people who were very much used to everyday expectancies and who had rarely had these breached.
Now, I actually have a suspicion that the some of the real meaning and intent behind those comments were lost in transcription. Perhaps "drop dead" was really a joking curse phrase in another language (I can imagine a few languages where this would work) or some of the comments were said sarcastically without real intent. It is difficult to tell meaning just from the transcription; remember how much is lost without common understanding.
Brian Tran 04:26, 3 May 2009 (PDT)
@Priyanka and Kenrick: I think that what Garfinkel was getting at was that things only appear simple because of the context. It's not that we are explaining something simple in even simpler terms. It's just that we are so familiar with the context surrounding it that we consider it trivial. Ethnomethodology examines why we see things as so simple when other people do not. It is because of the accounts and their implications that put context around everything and simplify our world.
