Harold Garfinkel

• Who is Harold Garfinkel
• Ethnomethodology: An Introduction
• Origin and Scope of Ethnomethodology
• Phenomenology and Ethnomethodology
• Background and Development
• Ethnomethodology of Garfinkel
• Contemporary Research Initiative in Ethnomethodology

Biographical Sketch

Harold Garfinkel, born on October 29, 1917, in Newark, New Jersey, was a distinguished American sociologist renowned for his contributions to the field of ethnomethodology. He served as a Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles, where he established ethnomethodology as a significant area of sociological inquiry. Among his notable works is the seminal book “Studies in Ethnomethodology,” published in 1967, which comprised a collection of articles, some previously published, along with selections from unpublished materials, later released in volumes titled “Seeing Sociologically” and “Ethnomethodology’s Program.” Additionally, he edited a collection of studies on work by his students.

Raised in Newark in a Jewish family, Garfinkel initially assisted his father, a furniture dealer, with the family business. However, he pursued higher education, studying accounting at the University of Newark, where he was exposed to a theoretical approach to learning, particularly influenced by instructors who were Columbia graduate students. This theoretical grounding profoundly influenced Garfinkel’s subsequent theoretical developments. Following his graduation, he engaged in volunteer work at a Quaker camp in Cornelia, Georgia, an experience that deeply impacted his perspective.

He engaged with a diverse array of students during his volunteer work, encountering a breadth of interests that spurred his later pursuit of sociology as a profession. It was during his time volunteering in Georgia that he became acquainted with the sociology program at the University of North Carolina, which notably emphasized public work initiatives similar to those he was involved in. Graduating with a Master’s degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1942, his thesis delved into the dynamics of interracial homicide. Under the guidance of his graduate professor, Howard W. Odum, he honed his skills and penned “Color Trouble,” a poignant narrative shedding light on the plight of segregated black women traveling on buses in Virginia. Inspired by the experiences of civil rights advocate Pauli Murray and her associate Adelene McBean, the story was published in Opportunity journal in 1940. With the outbreak of World War II, he was drafted into the Army Air Corps, where he served as a trainer in Florida before being stationed in Gulfport, Mississippi. It was there that he met his future wife and lifelong companion, Arlene Steinback.

Selected Publications

Garfinkel’s primary body of work comprised scholarly articles and technical reports, many later compiled into book chapters. Understanding the chronology of these writings is crucial for grasping the evolution of Garfinkel’s ideas. Despite its 2006 publication date, “Seeing Sociologically” originated as an annotated version of a draft dissertation proposal crafted two years after Garfinkel’s arrival at Harvard.

Similarly, “Toward a Sociological Theory of Information” was penned during Garfinkel’s student years, stemming from a 1952 report produced in collaboration with the Organizational Behavior Project at Princeton. Some of his initial papers on ethnomethodology were later republished as “Studies in Ethnomethodology,” a well-known work among sociologists. Subsequently, Garfinkel curated an anthology featuring ethnomethodologically informed pieces.

Later publications like “Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism” amalgamated previously published papers with new material, serving as a definitive exposition of the ethnomethodological approach alongside the aforementioned studies. Garfinkel intended to complement “Ethnomethodology’s Program” with a piece titled “Workplace and Documentary Diversity of Ethnomethodological Studies of Work and Sciences by Ethnomethodology’s Authors: What did we do? What did we learn?” Despite remaining unfinished, preliminary notes were shared in “Human Studies.”

Ethnomethodology: An Introduction

Ethnomethodology, a branch within sociology, delves into the intricacies and evolution of human social life. Championed by Harold Garfinkel, it emerged as a counterpoint to structural functionalism. Ethnomethodology directs attention to the often overlooked aspects of our world, prompting inquiries into why certain phenomena evade our notice. Contrary to the notion that these phenomena are too complex or distant, they are, in fact, intimately familiar yet taken for granted.

The term “ethnomethodology” itself can be dissected into two components. Firstly, “ethno” pertains to the everyday knowledge possessed by members of society and how they navigate it. This aspect draws from the practices of ordinary people, rooted in ethnography and common human experiences. Secondly, “methodology” encompasses the methods employed by individuals during their interactions, constituting the subject of study. It focuses on the practical activities and structures that shape social behavior.

In essence, ethnomethodology aims to uncover the knowledge and methodologies that underpin the everyday actions of society members.

Harold Garfinkel introduced the concept and argued that ethnomethodological research examines the routines of daily life, revealing how individuals make these activities understandable and explainable to others, essentially rendering them ‘accountable.’ Action and interaction rely on shared, practical knowledge that is taken for granted and must be understood in order to function effectively. Ethnomethodology aims to uncover the implicit knowledge and strategies people employ in their everyday lives, shedding light on the underlying realities of societal existence.

Origin and Scope of Ethnomethodology

The concept of Ethnomethodology was pioneered by Harold Garfinkel, stemming from his examination of jury behaviour in 1954. Garfinkel aimed to elucidate the ordinary methods by which jury members construct their roles within the jury context. This encompassed various aspects such as determining facts, establishing evidence chains, assessing witness credibility, organizing discourse within the jury room, and making judgments on guilt or innocence. These methods not only shape the jurors’ social order but also intrigue researchers and observers within that specific social milieu.

Garfinkel’s interest in Ethnomethodology emerged from his critique of Talcott Parsons‘ endeavour to formulate a universal societal theory. Influenced by Alfred Schutz’s ideas, Garfinkel revised several concepts while also drawing from his investigations into financial accounting practices, classical sociological theories by Durkheim and Weber, and the enduring sociological inquiry into maintaining social order, as articulated by Hobbes.

According to ethnomethodologists, the order within social settings is created by participants through their collective sense-making activities. This implies a natural reflexivity wherein the process of understanding a social context is intertwined with the continual construction of that context; essentially, they are one and the same. Moreover, these sense-making practices are observable and can be studied, thereby opening up a wide-ranging and multifaceted field of investigation. John Heritage suggests that the term “ethnomethodology” points towards a vast domain of unexplored dimensions in studying various sense-making procedures, rather than defining a clearly bounded territory.

Phenomenology & Ethnomethodology

Edmund Husserl is credited with introducing the term phenomenology, which he defined as the study of phenomena through a lens of pure eidetic vision. He aimed to encompass all objects perceived as phenomena within this framework. Husserl emphasized that the essence of these phenomena exists on a plane beyond immediate access, advocating for the avoidance of neuro-psychological perceptions. Instead, he proposed the method of phenomenal reduction to grasp the genuine essence, enabling a neutral observation of life’s facts.

Building upon Husserl’s ideas, phenomenology evolved into phenomenological psychology and social phenomenology. The core tenet of phenomenology suggests that all objects exist due to human assumption and construction. Alfred Schutz further extended this notion into phenomenological sociology.

Central to Schutz’s theory is the concept of “Lebenswelt,” or the lived-in world, wherein individuals construct their reality based on life experiences. This theory aims to delineate the essential characteristics of the social world and elucidate how it is formed and understood by ordinary individuals in their daily lives and routines.

In this context, the focus lies not on dissecting objects, but rather on building upon Alfred Schutz’s foundational concept, which Ethnomethodology expands upon. Harold Garfinkel contends that the world we inhabit isn’t solely shaped and understood by human perception; rather, humans actively construct and perpetuate social structures, thereby shaping social realities.

Ethnomethodology, within the realm of sociology, explores the everyday resources, methods, and behaviours through which members of a society generate and interpret shared understandings of objects, events, and actions. Originating in the late 1960s as a response to structural functionalism, which viewed behaviour as determined by social structures, ethnomethodology emphasizes that social actions and organization are the products of knowledgeable individuals who employ practical reasoning based on their immediate context. Ethnomethodological inquiry delves into the underlying social processes that contribute to the formation of social structures, manifested through the nuances of common-sense knowledge and reasoning, marking a significant shift often referred to as the “cognitive revolution” within the social sciences.

As a sociological perspective, ethnomethodology is concerned with the socially constructed and publicly acknowledged nature of common-sense reasoning, rather than delving into the psychological intricacies of cognitive processes. Research in ethnomethodology tends to be descriptive and observational, focusing on naturalistic exploration rather than explanatory or experimental methodologies.

Background and Development

The foundational principles of ethnomethodology emerged from the work of Harold Garfinkel in 1967, while he was at Harvard under the mentorship of Talcott Parsons, alongside extensive empirical research conducted at The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Garfinkel’s exploration was prompted by a critical examination of sociological analyses prevalent in the 1950s, which primarily investigated how individuals utilize knowledge to interpret and engage in everyday social interactions. Contrary to the prevailing notion that internalized norms serve as primary motivators for behaviour, Garfinkel argued that effective goal attainment relies on an understanding of actual circumstances, with shared social knowledge being crucial for coordinated actions. He posed fundamental inquiries to address shortcomings in existing theories of action:

1. What constitutes this knowledge?
2. How is it put into practice and updated?
3. Through what mechanisms is shared and evolving knowledge about actions and events maintained?

In addressing these inquiries, Garfinkel utilized the theoretical framework of phenomenological sociologist Alfred Schutz, often regarded as an academic extension of Schutz’s social phenomenology theory. Schutz observed that individuals enter the social realm equipped with a “stock of knowledge” composed of common-sense constructs and socially derived categories. These constructs, utilized presuppositional, dynamically, and without conscious awareness, contribute to an individual’s perception of reality. Schutz further noted that these constructs are typified, approximate, subject to revision, and that actions are guided by a mixture of “recipe knowledge.” Moreover, he highlighted that achieving intersubjective understanding among actors relying on these constructs is an ongoing constructive process. Ethnomethodology emerged from Garfinkel’s endeavour to translate these theoretical insights into empirical research.

A significant aspect of this endeavour manifested in the well-known “breaching experiments,” inspired by earlier “incongruity experiments” conducted by Solomon Asch and Jerome Bruner. These experiments deliberately disrupted ordinary expectations and understandings of social behavior using various methods. By intentionally causing disruptions in commonplace social scenarios, Garfinkel illustrated the fundamental role of taken-for-granted background understandings and contextual knowledge in the mutual recognition of social events and the coordination of social actions.

Garfinkle’s analysis suggests that understanding actions and events involves an iterative process of reasoning where various elements such as part and whole, foreground and background, continuously interact with each other. Inspired by Karl Mannheim, he terms this approach “the documentary method of interpretation.” This method relies on fundamental assumptions and inferential techniques to establish connections between an action or event and its real-world and normative context. The nature of the action is perceived as a “gestalt contexture,” formed through the intertwining of the action itself with its contextual backdrop. Garfinkle emphasizes the temporal dimension of actions and events, recognizing the dynamic nature of background and context. In his view, presuppositions, implicit background knowledge, and contextual details are essential components in the comprehension of events, serving as inevitable resources for understanding.

Garfinkel’s work also highlights the inherent approximation involved in recognizing, describing, or coding actions and events. He noted that the specifics of objects and events don’t neatly align with their representations in descriptions or coding. Garfinkel termed this process of fitting as involving a range of approximating activities, which he referred to as “ad hoc practices.”

This observation contrasts with his well-known idea that descriptions, actions, and the like possess indexical properties, their meaning being shaped and specified by their contextual setting. Garfinkel suggested that an important implication of these insights is that shared understandings cannot simply emerge from a “common culture” through a straightforward matching of shared words or concepts. Instead, they can only be constructively achieved through dynamic social processes. Similarly, Garfinkel’s analysis suggests that the social functioning of rules and norms operates in a similar manner.

Conclusion: Garfinkel’s studies suggest that the shared understanding of the social world relies on various implicit reasoning methods. These methods, which are procedural and widely accepted within society, are continuously employed to identify common social elements and occurrences throughout daily life. The construction and acknowledgment of this shared social reality are fundamentally rooted in a collective set of practical reasoning procedures, which translate and refine a pool of imprecise knowledge.

Moreover, these procedures not only aid in understanding actions but also serve as a tool for generating them. Individuals implicitly utilize these methods to execute actions that are recognizable and describable within their social contexts. The shared reasoning methods are readily observable in social interactions as they are reflected in the outcomes of these interactions. As Garfinkel (1967a) stated, “The activities involved in creating and managing everyday social settings align with members’ processes for rendering these settings understandable.”

Garfinkel’s experiments revealed that employing collaborative reasoning methods is crucial for both generating and comprehending social actions. However, they also unveiled a profound reliance, or “trust,” placed upon these methods. This trust stems from deeply ingrained normative principles, underpinned by strong moral values and reinforced through persuasive moral rhetoric. Individuals whose actions deviated from the scope of this reasoning framework often faced hostility and were pressured to justify their behaviour. Consequently, Garfinkel’s experiments underscored the moral underpinnings of practical reasoning, emphasizing its role as a procedural foundation for social interactions.

Ethnomethodology of Garfinkel

Ethnomethodology emerged in the mid-1960s as a response to the shifting landscape of sociological thought, departing from traditional perspectives. Coined by American sociologist Harold Garfinkel, it served as both a theoretical framework and a critical reflection on established sociological norms.

Drawing from diverse philosophical currents including phenomenology and linguistic philosophy, ethnomethodology aligns with the broader trend known as the ‘linguistic turn’ in twentieth-century philosophy. This turn reflects a growing interest in the nature and function of language in shaping social reality. Ethnomethodologists view social life as a continuous process of constructing and reconstructing stable social phenomena through language use. Hence, the term itself reflects its focus on studying the methods by which people generate social order.

Emphasizing action and practice, ethnomethodology underscores the importance of understanding how individuals navigate social interactions. While distinctions were once made between linguistic and situational ethnomethodology, these differences are now seen as merely variations in emphasis, both rooted in the central role of language in social processes.

There are two central ideas in ethnomethodology:

            1.         Indexicality

            2.         Reflexivity

1. Indexicality: The initial point to consider is that clear, exhaustive definitions of words or concepts in a language are essentially nonexistent. This is because meaning derives from the reference and context provided by other words within the language. One can continuously question the meaning of a statement by asking “What do you mean?” and this inquiry can perpetuate indefinitely, without a definitive conclusion. Harold Garfinkel’s early work often involved exercises designed to demonstrate that we construct and sustain a sense of meaning and reality in social interactions that may not inherently exist. For instance, one exercise involved repeatedly asking “What do you mean?” during conversations, which led participants to feel distressed and frustrated as the conventional rules used to establish meaning were undermined, resulting in a loss of their social reality.

2. Reflexivity: It points to the notion that our perception of order emerges through conversational dynamics; it arises through dialogue, and we often perceive ourselves as merely describing pre-existing order. Ethnomethodologists assert that describing a situation simultaneously brings it into being. These concepts were part of a radical critique of traditional sociology, leading to intense debates. Ethnomethodologists argue that conventional sociologists, like laypeople, construct a sense of social order that is accepted without question. They suggest that sociology’s true purpose is to uncover the interpretive frameworks through which we perceive order, rather than simply reinforcing it reflexively. Consequently, conventional sociology becomes a subject of examination for ethnomethodology, akin to any other social activity, due to Garfinkel’s use of codes in interviews to generate social reality.

Critical Evaluation

Based on the preceding analysis, it can be argued that ethnomethodology, like other contemporary sociological theories, has made significant academic contributions while also facing critiques. One prevalent criticism is its perceived lack of relevance to major political and social issues, as it focuses primarily on the construction of our reality rather than its content.

Critics suggest that the rules elucidated by ethnomethodology are often mundane and merely reiterate commonly known information. John H. Goldthorpe, a traditional sociologist, notably criticized ethnomethodology for its overly general descriptions of individual daily routines in his influential work, ‘A Revolution in Sociology?’ Additionally, scathing reviews by James S. Coleman in the American Sociological Review (1968) and Lewis A. Coser’s renowned presidential address to the American Sociological Association in 1975, titled ‘Two Methods in Search of a Substance,’ further underscore the skepticism towards this theory.

Despite previous critiques, it is evident that ethnomethodological research persists today, albeit with less prominence and controversy than before. Nevertheless, certain modified insights from ethnomethodology are now widely accepted, such as the recognition within sociology of the intricate nature of meaning and how our communication shapes social reality. Ethnomethodology itself has evolved into a flourishing field, marked by its own conferences, journals, and centers of excellence.

Aaron Cicourel, among ethnomethodologists, has notably sought to bridge the gap with mainstream sociology. The most comprehensive effort to integrate ethnomethodological perspectives into sociology can be seen in the works of Anthony Giddens, particularly in his publications “New Rules of Sociological Method” (1976) and “The Constitution of Society” (1984). While Giddens doesn’t go as far as viewing social reality and societies solely as products of communication, he acknowledges the fundamental role of tacitly understood rules in maintaining social order. His concept of rules closely aligns with that of ethnomethodology, offering a framework to comprehend both social action and structure and to unite the two perspectives.

Contemporary Research Initiatives in Ethnomethodology

Garfinkel’s works have sparked extensive discussion, theoretical responses, and empirical endeavours across various domains. There is ongoing discourse surrounding empirical investigations within the field of ethnomethodology, as evidenced by the following discussions.

1. Social structures as normal environments
2. Creation and maintenance of social worlds
3. Studies of work
4. Conversation analysis

1. Social Structures as Normal Environments: In his theoretical works, Schutz proposed that human consciousness inherently categorizes, with language serving as the primary conduit for socially standardized categorization. Building upon this concept, Garfinkle, through empirical studies, expanded on the idea concerning social processes. He highlighted how everyday reasoning often operates within a moral framework, categorizing and normalizing individuals and occurrences. Numerous influential ethnomethodological studies have further explored this notion, examining how participants actively or implicitly contribute to establishing or perpetuating a sense of normalcy in their daily interactions. Particularly, these investigations delved into areas such as deviance and bureaucratic practices, which simultaneously construct and deconstruct social norms. This research has unveiled new and significant social dynamics that shape the categorical actions of various public agencies. However, the revelation that official statistics on social phenomena may be largely influenced by assumptions and practices of relevant officials has spurred ongoing debates within the discipline, remaining unresolved to date.

2. The Creation and Maintenance of Social Institutions and Social Worlds: A significant aspect of ethnomethodological theory revolves around the concept that social institutions maintain their existence as tangible entities through the frameworks of language and accounting systems used to perceive and respond to social phenomena. This notion, initially hinted at by C. Wright Mills and further explored by Garfinkel in his analysis of a trans-sexual individual, highlights how gender identity is not only an individual achievement but also relies on one’s understanding and adherence to societal norms and practices, often unnoticed by those who conform to conventional gender roles. Subsequent studies have delved deeper into the role of these frameworks in both shaping and perpetuating social institutions and realities that are often taken for granted.

3. Workplace Studies: Recently, there has been a notable rise in ethnomethodological research, particularly evident in the realms of social studies of science and examinations of knowledge and action within workplaces. These investigations build upon earlier studies by focusing on the practical contexts and achievements inherent in scientific and workplace endeavours. Undoubtedly, workplace studies have significantly contributed to ethnographic research, emphasizing real-life behaviours and grounded in robust scientific and technological understandings of cultural phenomena across different societies. Scholars such as Lucy Suchman, Lynch and Woolgar, Agre, and Jordan, alongside Garfinkle, have conducted pioneering studies in workplace dynamics, particularly in human-machine communication, rooted in observations of human actions and interactions.

4. Conversational Analysis: Conversation Analysis (CA) emerged from the fusion of Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology, Erving Goffman’s interactionism, and the principles of sociolinguistics. Originating in the 1960s with the pioneering work of Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, Gail Jefferson, and Anita Pomerantz, CA has evolved into a globally recognized interdisciplinary endeavour. From the mid-1970s onward, there has been a surge in interest in CA, renowned for its methodological rigour. Its influence spans diverse fields including business (examining work and organizational dynamics), medicine (analyzing doctor-patient interactions), legal studies (investigating deviance, law enforcement, and judicial proceedings), as well as science, computer science, robotics, gender studies, race relations, cross-cultural studies, sociology, language studies, communication, and semiotics.

Conclusion: Based on the description provided, it is evident that ethnomethodology, originating in the 1960s, has evolved into a multifaceted framework for research. It has identified and addressed previously unnoticed or disregarded topic areas, problems, and issues, leading to both deconstructive and constructive outcomes. The distinction between these two tendencies holds significance for theoretical and empirical advancements in sociology, shaping the discipline’s overall perspective. In essence, ethnomethodology’s methodological approach extends its influence to various adjacent disciplines focused on knowledge systems, communication, action, and practical reasoning.

References and Readings:

Studies in Ethnomethodology, by  Garfinkel, https://amzn.to/4iJpdKN

Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology (Social & Political Theory), by  John Heritage, https://amzn.to/4iF4eZC

Sociological Theory, by  Ritzer G, https://amzn.to/3Da3pcm