Sociology 1001
Reading Guide #4
Fall term 2014
THE ANTI-SOCIOLOGIES
#1 ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
Recap
We began this course by looking at the European models for understanding social life (Marx’s, Durkheim’s, and Weber’s)
-And then we looked at Parsons’ North American model of structural functionalism, (which sees society as similar to a human body)
After having looked at these MACRO SOCIOLOGIES
We started looking at some MICRO-SOCIOLOGICAL SCHOOLS
And so far we have looked at the ‘normative’, the ‘symbolic interactionist’ and the ‘dramaturgical’ schools of ‘micro-sociology’.
-they all try to explain how the ‘social invididual’ goes about his or her life with other people.
More generally, we can say that all these ‘sociological models’ reflected their time and place.
The European theories reflected the concerns of 19th century Europe (trying to understand the massive changes; urbanization, industrialization, etc)
The North American Theories reflected either
- the stability and orderliness of post-war America (check out the TV show “Leave it to Beaver” and compare it with the TV show “Modern Families”)
- the diversity of US life (as suggested by the widescale immigration into the US)
-However, by the 1960’s, North American society, and other Western societies, were displaying signs of DISORDER and CHALLENGES to the existing order
(eg counter-culture, Civil rights movement, Quebec liberation movement, women’s movement)
-and perhaps not surprisingly, just as these groups challenged the existing social order,
There emerged new (Anti-) sociologies which challenged the existing sociological order.
ANTI-SOCIOLOGY #1
ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
Questioning Sociology’s Scientific Authority
Just like the counter-culture started questioning the authority of existing society in the 1960’s
A school of sociology, called Ethnomethodology’ started questioning the authority of existing sociology in the 1960’s
QUESTIONING SOCIOLOGY’S “TRUTHS”
- RE-THINKING THE FACTS OF ‘SUICIDE’
As we have seen already in this course, Durkheim founded sociology as a science, because he was the first to use ‘social statistics’ (eg on crime, health, suicide) as facts.
But as we will now see, the ethnomethodologists show that the foundations of this sociological ‘expertise’ and ‘authority’ are problematic.
- Atkinson on the interpretive foundations of ‘suicide statistics’
This is because when one examines these ‘facts’ of suicide, one discovers that they are not ‘facts’ at all.
Instead they are interpretations.
Not only that, but they are interpretations based on our shared ‘common sense reasoning’
Atkinson’s study shows this by looking at the process by which coroners compile ‘official statistics on suicide’
Typically, one of the tasks of a coroner when there is a ‘suspicious’ death is to examine the ‘cause’ of death
Thus typically, the coroner’s role is to get the ‘facts’ on cause of death.
Equally importantly, the statistics that the coroner produces are seen as facts by most people
However, what Atkinson discovered in his empirical analysis of Coroners is that the ‘facts that coroners produce are more like judicial verdicts
That is, the coroner has to interpret what has occurred
He has to weigh up all the evidence that he obtains
And then he has to use his common sense to make a decision
Moreover, there is no official algorithm for helping him to ‘weigh’ up all this different evidence
Atkinson’s research showed in fine detail, HOW the coroner went about his job
And what types of common sense ‘clues’ he looked for
- Presence or absence of a suicide note (genuine versus fake note issue)
Ii Mode of death (road deaths usually not suicides, hangings are; but there are exceptions)
Equivocal deaths (drug overdoses)
Drowning (did he fold his clothes? Folded clothes often point to a suicide)
Iii location of death (in the bush, in the bedroom re overdoses)
- circumstances of death (death via tablet overdose; prescription more likely means not suicide, stolen pills more likely a suicide)
v life history of suspect (did his parents die young? Did he come from a single parent family? Did he escape to the army? Did he switch jobs a lot?)
vi recent mental condition (how had he been feeling recently?)
All these factors, and others the coroner takes into account when making his decision.
But then he has to transform these ‘pieces of evidence’ into a ‘fact’
And that is his final ‘interpretation’ (on top of all the other interpretations that are part of the evidence)
Yet, when sociologists look to carry out their research (eg on suicide) they simply treat these statistics as ‘facts’ not interpretations.
And that should be a major problem for traditional sociology
II RE-THINKING THE “FACTS OF GENDER
Throughout most of its history, sociology had assumed that social life is divided into two genders.
Not only that, it had assumed that gender is an obvious ‘fact’.
And they assumed this ‘fact to be so obvious, that when sociologists carried out their questionnaires, they simply asked ‘male or female’.
Garfinkel on the ‘facts’ of gender; sexuality’ as a common sense accomplishment –
What Garfinkel’s study shows quite nicely, is that what previous sociologists saw as ‘factual’ can also be the product of ‘common sense reasoning’.
That in our society, ‘sexuality’ is not decided biologically, but socially
That is, if you act male, look male, and say you are male, (or female), then society will accept this sexuality
(this introduces the notion that society typically accepts things ‘for all practical purposes)
-And thus as we will see, some people can exploit this nature of social life to ‘accomplish sexuality’
-But the study of ‘Agnes’ is not only an interesting study for what it says about the ‘common sense’ rather than ‘scientific’ character of much prior sociology;
but it is also insightful because it provides a much more sophisticated understanding of the notion of the social ‘self’ than does Goffman’s ‘dramaturgical approach.
-It is the study of how ‘sexuality’ is presented in everyday life.
-But as we will see, the problem with Agnes is that the back stage is as problematic as the front stage.
And the implication from this is that everyone is working on their ‘self’, whether it be front or back stage. That is, there is no time out.
-Moreover, it shows us how what many of us common sensically think of as being ‘natural’ (eg gender) is actually social.
–It shows us quite nicely how ‘reality’ itself is socially constructed
-and it makes us question what we understand as ‘social reality’, itself.
So let us take a quick look at Garfinkel’s study of Agnes
-What is so interesting about this study is that Agnes displays how ‘social reality’ is ongoingly accomplished, through her skilful use of common sense reasoning.
-When Garfinkel first met Agnes, she looked like a very attractive 19 year old woman.
-however, she had come to LA for an operation to correct what she called her ‘defective’ body.
-That is, she had been born with male genitals and had been raised a boy until her mid-teens.
-In order to get her operation, Agnes had to agree to attend sessions with Garfinkel.
-Here he discovered how Agnes was creating a ‘self’ which was accepted by everyone, as ‘female’.
-but this could not be done, as Goffman implies, by utilizing a ‘back stage’ first and then presenting the preferred ‘self’ on the front stage.
-This was because the ‘back stage’ was just as problematic as the front stage.
-Agnes never had a ‘time out’, she was always ‘learning’ how to act like a ‘lady’ but she never knew the rules of this ‘game’
-Thus she was always ‘improvising’ in order to PASS as a woman. (Rod Michalko)
-eg with her boyfriend, with her boyfriend’s mother,
-And this passing had to be accomplished on a moment by moment, second by second basis (with no time outs)
She accomplished this by using a number of ‘ethno-methods’ for accomplishing social life (and these ‘methods’ are general, socially available methods, that any competent member – like yourself – can access)
- Basics
Sitting like a woman
Walking like a woman
Talking like a woman
‘carrying books like a girl’ problem!
- Avoiding disclosure of her ‘secret’
-not driving her car
-planning in advance all activities
eg medical exam (modesty excuse)
-pre-job urine test (get a friend’s)
-going to the beach (ensuring the appropriate change room)
- letting the surrounding talk guide her
- talking in euphemisms and generalities (so as never to be pinned down on any specifics)
- giving normal, not truthful answers (giving answers which she hopes are ‘socially acceptable to the people she is speaking to)
- giving off an air of carelessness (so as to help disguise any suggestion that she might be having problems)
In other words, Agnes shows that our world of social reality is a ‘for all practical purposes’ type of world.
-That is, it is maintained by people acting together to produce a ‘for all practical purposes’ sense of social reality, where people who ‘common sensically’ produce themselves in a certain way are ‘accepted’ as such.
But the ethnomethodologists did not just question the ‘facts’ that other sociologists had simply taken for granted,
They also identified major problems with all the previous MICRO-SOCIOLOGIES
