Major theoretical strands of research methodology
Understanding Facts and Theories in Sociology
Interpreting Facts
Role of Common Sense: Facts themselves do not interpret or explain themselves; humans use their common sense to make sense of their experiences.
Framework of Ideas: Individuals place their observations (facts) within a framework of related ideas to understand them better.
Application in Sociology: Sociologists also interpret observations using a structured approach called a theory.
Concept of Theory
Definition: A theory in sociology is a general statement that explains how different parts of the social world fit together and function.
Explanation of Relationships: It outlines how various "facts" or observations are interconnected and why they occur in specific ways.
Purpose of Theory
Understanding Relationships: Provides a structured understanding of how social phenomena relate to each other.
Framework for Analysis: Serves as a framework for analyzing and interpreting sociological data and observations.
Example
Application: For instance, a sociologist might use a theory of social stratification to explain how economic status relates to access to education and healthcare.
Conclusion
Theories in sociology play a crucial role in organizing and explaining social observations. They provide a conceptual framework that helps sociologists interpret data and understand the complex interconnections within society. By utilizing theories, sociologists aim to offer meaningful explanations for social phenomena and contribute to broader understanding of human behaviour and societal dynamics.
Functionalism
1. Central Idea of Functional Analysis
Description: Functional analysis, also known as functionalism or structural functionalism, views society as a cohesive unit composed of interrelated parts that work together.
Origins: Rooted in the early foundations of sociology, Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer likened society to a living organism with interconnected organs.
Analogy: Like an organism, for society to function smoothly, its parts must harmoniously interact.
2. Emile Durkheim's Perspective
Description: Durkheim also conceptualized society as comprising many parts, each with its own function.
Normal vs. Abnormal State: When all parts fulfill their functions, society operates in a "normal" state; dysfunction in any part leads to an "abnormal" or "pathological" state.
Analytical Approach: Functionalists emphasize understanding society through both structure (how parts fit together) and function (roles and contributions of each part).
3. Robert Merton and Functionalism
Description: Robert Merton refined functionalism by focusing on functions and dysfunctions.
Functions: These are beneficial consequences of people's actions that help maintain societal balance and stability.
Dysfunctions: Consequences that harm society by disrupting its equilibrium.
Manifest and Latent Functions in Functionalism
4. Manifest and Latent Functions
Manifest Function: Actions intended to help a part of the system directly. For example, a government offering a $10,000 bonus per child to increase childbirth rates.
Intent: Increase childbearing within families.
Latent Function: Unintended consequences that also benefit the system. For instance, increased sales of diapers and baby furniture due to the increased birth rate.
Unintended Benefit: Boost to businesses related to childcare products.
5. Latent Dysfunctions
Description: Unintended consequences that harm the system. For example, if the government bonus system leads to unchecked population growth, causing poverty, strain on welfare systems, and social unrest.
Unintended Harm: Increases in poverty, welfare reliance, and societal unrest due to unintended consequences of the bonus program.
6. Application in Societal Analysis
Functional Analysis Perspective: Views society as a functioning unit where each part contributes to the whole.
Analytical Approach: When analyzing any social group, functionalism examines both its functions (intended and unintended benefits) and dysfunctions (unintended harms).
Applicability: Applies across various social scales, from entire societies to smaller groups like colleges or families.
Criticisms of Functionalism
1. Utopian Nature
Criticism: Conflict theorists view functionalism as utopian because it portrays society as harmonious and stable, overlooking inherent conflicts and inequalities.Emphasis on Conflict: Conflict theorists argue that conflict is a universal and omnipresent phenomenon in systems of stratification.
2. Ignoring Conflict and Constraint
Criticism: Conflict theorists assert that functionalism ignores the pervasive constraints, disagreements, uncertainties, dysfunctional aspects, and coercive elements within societies.
Reality of Conflict: All societies involve varying degrees of conflict that functionalism fails to adequately address.
3. Conflict and Stability
Criticism: Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists argue that conflict does not necessarily lead to stability and consensus in society.
Challenges to Stability: Conflict can disrupt social equilibrium and challenge existing power structures, leading to instability rather than consensus.
4. Nature of Consensus and Equilibrium
Criticism: It is crucial to study how consensus and equilibrium are maintained within a system that also experiences conflict.
Dynamic Interaction: Understanding how societies manage both conflict and consensus provides a more comprehensive view of social dynamics.
Conclusion
Functionalism, while offering insights into societal stability and equilibrium, faces criticism from conflict theorists who highlight its idealistic view of society. Conflict theory emphasizes the inherent conflicts and power struggles that shape social structures, challenging functionalism's portrayal of harmony and consensus. To fully grasp societal dynamics, it is essential to consider both functionalist perspectives on stability and conflict theory's emphasis on power dynamics and inequality. This dual perspective enriches sociological analysis by providing a more nuanced understanding of how societies function amidst internal tensions and external pressures.
Marxism(Conflict Perspectives)
1. Overview of Conflict Perspective
Composition of Society: Views society as comprised of diverse groups with conflicting values and interests.
Access to Resources: Emphasizes differential access to wealth, power, and prestige among these groups.
Key Approaches: Focuses on Marxian approach (economic determinism and social class) and neoconflict approach (differential power and authority).
2. Marxian Approach to Conflict
Theoretical Roots: Traces back to Karl Marx, who highlighted economic factors as central to societal conflicts.
Social Class: Conflict is primarily rooted in social class differences, specifically between the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) and the proletariat (working class).
Domination and Exploitation: Dominant groups (bourgeoisie) impose their values and ideology on less powerful groups (proletariat), leading to exploitation and social inequality.
3. Neoconflict Approach
Functional Aspect of Conflict: Views social conflict as a necessary and sometimes functional process.
Negotiation and Compromise: Conflict can stimulate negotiation and compromise, contributing to social order and reaffirming social structures.
Example: In diverse societies like the United States, conflicts among racial, ethnic, religious, age, gender, and political groups are inevitable but can lead to constructive outcomes.
Budget Example: Debate over national budget allocations illustrates how conflicting interests can shape policy decisions, highlighting the functional role of conflict in democratic processes..
Shift in Focus: Class conflict in industrialized nations is viewed less as a struggle over means of production (Marx's view) and more about the unequal distribution of authority.
Example of Power and Prestige: Tensions between college professors and students illustrate conflicts arising from differences in power and prestige, not ownership of property.
Exploitation by Powerful Groups: Neoconflict perspective emphasizes how powerful groups exploit others through control of authority and resources.
Symbolic Interactionism (Interactionism)
1. Overview of Symbolic Interactionism
Social Meaning: Views social meaning as constructed through ongoing social interactions.
Basic Premises: Contemporary symbolic interactionism is grounded in three fundamental premises:
Premise 1: Meaning as the Basis of Action
Meaningful Interaction: Human beings act towards things based on the meanings they attribute to them.
Subjective Interpretation: Meanings are not inherent in objects but are constructed through subjective interpretation in social contexts.
Premise 2: Meaning Derived from Social Interaction
Social Context: Meanings emerge from social interactions with others.
Shared Meanings: Individuals negotiate and develop shared meanings through these interactions.
Premise 3: Modification of Meanings
Dynamic Process: Meanings are not static; they can evolve and change over time.
Interaction and Interpretation: Through ongoing interaction and interpretation, individuals can modify or reinterpret existing meanings.
Symbols in Everyday Life
1.Defining Relationships: Symbols are crucial in defining social relationships such as family ties (aunts, uncles), professional roles (employers, teachers), and personal connections (brothers, sisters).
2.Behaviour al Influence: Symbols dictate how individuals behave towards others. For instance, treating someone as an aunt or uncle results in different behaviour s compared to treating them as a romantic partner.
Example Illustration
3.Impact of Symbols: Using a hypothetical scenario of familial revelation before a wedding, where the symbol of familial relation (mother and child) dramatically alters perceptions and behaviour s overnight.
Societal Implications
4.Coordination and Society: Symbols are essential for societal coordination and organization. They enable planning, collaboration, and the establishment of social institutions such as hospitals, governments, and religious structures.
Interactionist Perspective Overview
4.Microlevel Analysis: Proponents of the interactionist perspective focus on the day-to-day interactions among individuals and groups in specific social situations. This microlevel analysis emphasizes how these interactions shape social reality.
5.Meaningful Symbols: George H. Mead highlighted the importance of meaningful symbols in social interaction. These symbols, which include sounds, objects, colors, and events, represent something beyond their literal meaning. Language, as a significant symbolic system, enables communication through shared meanings.
6.Definition of the Situation: According to the concept of the definition of the situation, articulated by Thomas and Thomas, the way individuals define situations influences their behaviour and the outcomes of those situations. Once a situation is defined, it guides subsequent interactions. For example:
Impact of Definitions: Consider the scenario of falling "in love" with someone. This new definition alters how one interacts with that person, shaping the relationship dynamics.
Marital Definitions: Similarly, when a married couple defines their relationship as no longer loving or meaningful, it profoundly affects their interactions and the likelihood of their marriage surviving.
Theoretical Analyses within Interactionism
Dramaturgical Analysis: Developed by Erving Goffman, dramaturgical analysis compares social interaction to a theatrical performance, where individuals play roles and manage impressions to achieve specific social goals.
Labelling Approach: This approach examines how labels applied to individuals or groups (such as "deviant" or "criminal") influence their behaviour and societal reactions towards them.
It seems like the text you've provided is mixing together various concepts and historical developments in sociology. Let's clarify and expand on the points made:
7. The Looking-Glass Self
Concept: The looking-glass self, formulated by Charles Horton Cooley, proposes that individuals develop their self-concept through their understanding of how others perceive them. Essentially, people see themselves reflected through the reactions and judgments of others.
Process: This concept suggests that our self-image is not based solely on our own perceptions or introspection but is deeply influenced by the feedback we receive from others in social interactions.
Implications: It underscores the role of socialization in shaping personal and social identities. The looking-glass self helps explain how individuals internalize societal norms, values, and expectations, which in turn influence their behaviour and self-esteem.
8. Dramaturgical Analysis
Theoretical Framework: Introduced by Erving Goffman, dramaturgical analysis uses the analogy of theater to understand social behaviour . In this framework, individuals are seen as actors who strategically perform roles in different social situations.
Role-playing: Just as actors adopt roles on stage, people in everyday life perform roles to manage the impressions they give to others. This involves impression management, where individuals aim to convey specific images or identities to others.
Critique: While dramaturgical analysis provides insights into how social interactions are structured like performances, critics argue it may oversimplify human behaviour by focusing too narrowly on impression management and role-playing.
9. The Labeling Approach
Theory: The labeling approach within symbolic interactionism posits that societal labels attached to individuals or groups affect their self-concept and subsequent behaviour .
Social Identity: Labels such as "deviant," "criminal," or "artist" are not merely descriptive but become part of a person's identity and shape how others perceive and treat them.
Howard Becker: In his work "Outsiders," Becker explored how societal reactions and labels influenced the self-identity and behaviour of jazz musicians in the 1950s.
Criticism: Critics argue that the labeling approach may overlook structural factors that contribute to labeling and may not adequately address power dynamics inherent in labeling processes.
Historical Context and Development
Chicago School: The Chicago School of sociology, influential in the early 20th century, emphasized qualitative research methods, ethnography, and the study of urban social problems. Symbolic interactionism was a key theoretical perspective associated with this school.
Critique and Revival: In the late 1950s, there was a shift towards more quantitative and positivistic approaches in sociology, which challenged the Chicago School's emphasis on subjective interpretations and ethnographic studies.
Iowa School: The Iowa School of symbolic interactionism emerged as a response to criticisms of the Chicago School, advocating for a more rigorous and scientific approach while still retaining the focus on symbolic interaction and qualitative methods.
Criticisms of Symbolic Interactionism (Interactionism)
1. Focus on Small-Scale Interaction
Criticism: Interactionists are accused of examining human interaction in isolation, focusing heavily on small-scale, face-to-face interactions without adequately considering broader historical or social contexts.
Implication: This criticism suggests that symbolic interactionism may overlook how larger societal forces, such as historical events or social structures (e.g., class relations), shape and influence individual interactions.
Marxian Critique: Marxists argue that understanding interactions without considering the broader social and historical context leads to an incomplete analysis of how power dynamics and class relationships influence meanings and interactions.
2. Neglect of Historical and Social Frameworks
Criticism: Symbolic interactionists concentrate on specific situations and encounters without sufficiently referencing the historical events or wider social frameworks that precede or contextualize these interactions.
Importance: Critics argue that ignoring historical and social factors limits the depth of analysis, as these factors profoundly shape the conditions and meanings within which interactions occur.
Omission: This omission is seen as problematic because it hinders a comprehensive understanding of why interactions unfold as they do and how societal changes impact interaction patterns over time.
3. Overemphasis on Individual Agency
Criticism: While symbolic interactionism provides a valuable corrective to structural determinism by emphasizing individual agency and the creation of meanings through interactions, it may overlook the influence of structural norms and systemic constraints.
Balance: Critics argue that while interactionists acknowledge the existence of social norms, they often treat them as given without sufficiently exploring their origins or the broader societal mechanisms that enforce them.
4. Failure to Explain Standardized Behaviour
Criticism: Critics, like William Skidmore, argue that symbolic interactionism does not adequately explain why individuals consistently choose certain actions over others in given situations.
Constraints: By emphasizing the flexibility and freedom of human action, symbolic interactionism may downplay the constraints imposed by societal norms and structures that guide behaviour .
Structural Explanation: The criticism here is that interactionists do not sufficiently account for how social structures and standardized normative behaviour s are developed, maintained, and motivated within society.
5. Source of Meaning
Criticism: Critics contend that symbolic interactionists fail to explain the origin of the meanings that individuals attach to symbols and interactions.
Social Structure: They argue that meanings are not spontaneously created in interaction but are systematically generated by the broader social structure, including power dynamics and cultural norms.
6. Class Relationships and Meaning
Criticism: Marxists argue that the meanings embedded in face-to-face interactions are largely shaped by class relationships.
Explanation Gap: Interactionists, according to this critique, do not adequately address how class influences the creation and interpretation of meanings in social interactions.
7. Cultural Bias of American Sociology
Criticism: Interactionism is viewed as a distinctly American branch of sociology, reflecting the cultural ideals and values of American society.
American Ideals: Leon Shaskolsky suggests that interactionism's emphasis on liberty, freedom, and individuality mirrors America's cultural self-image.
Limitation: This critique implies that interactionism may not fully capture the diversity of social experiences and perspectives found in other cultural contexts or societies with different value systems.
Conclusion
These criticisms highlight important theoretical and methodological limitations within symbolic interactionism. While the perspective offers valuable insights into the micro-level dynamics of social interaction, it faces challenges in addressing broader structural influences, historical contexts, and cultural diversity. Critics argue that a more integrated approach that combines insights from both micro-level interactionism and macro-level structuralism is needed for a more comprehensive understanding of social phenomena.
Phenomenology
Phenomenology presents a distinct perspective in sociology that contrasts sharply with natural sciences, particularly in how it views the study of human behaviour and consciousness. Here are the key points regarding phenomenology:
1.Fundamental Difference in Subject Matter:
Phenomenology argues that the subject matter of the social sciences (including sociology) is fundamentally different from that of the natural sciences.
The natural sciences deal with matter, which operates according to external stimuli and reacts "unconsciously." For instance, atoms and molecules do not possess consciousness, meanings, or purposes that direct their behaviour .
In contrast, human beings are conscious entities with subjective experiences, meanings, and intentions that shape their behaviour and interactions. Phenomenology asserts that understanding human behaviour requires exploring these internal experiences and meanings.
2.Appropriateness of Methods:
Given the unique nature of human consciousness and subjective experiences, phenomenologists argue that the methods and assumptions of the natural sciences are inappropriate for studying human phenomena.
Natural sciences typically observe and measure external behaviour s and physical processes objectively. This approach is feasible because matter lacks consciousness and subjective experiences.
In sociology, however, understanding human behaviour involves exploring the internal logic of consciousness, subjective meanings, and intentions, which cannot be adequately captured through purely external, objective observation.
3.Internal Logic of Consciousness:
Phenomenology emphasizes the importance of exploring the internal logic of consciousness. Unlike matter, human behaviour is guided by subjective meanings and interpretations of the world.
Social scientists, therefore, need to engage in methods that allow them to grasp the subjective experiences and interpretations that individuals attach to their actions and interactions.
This approach contrasts with natural sciences, where behaviour s are explained based on external, observable patterns and laws.
4.Consciousness and Meaning:
Unlike matter, which reacts to external stimuli in a mechanistic manner, human beings possess consciousness. This includes thoughts, feelings, intentions, and an awareness of being.
Because of consciousness, human actions are meaningful. Individuals define situations and attribute significance to their own actions as well as the actions of others.
For instance, early humans encountering fire did not merely react to heat. They attributed various meanings to fire such as warmth, defense against animals, and a tool for transforming substances like cooking food or hardening spear points.
This example illustrates how human behaviour is not deterministic but rather guided by subjective meanings and interpretations that individuals assign to their experiences.
5.Understanding Action:
If human action arises from subjective meanings, then sociologists must focus on discovering and interpreting these meanings to understand why people act the way they do.
Sociological inquiry cannot rely solely on external observation and imposition of external logic. Instead, it requires interpreting the internal logic that shapes and directs human actions.
This approach contrasts with natural sciences, which focus on objective, external observation and measurement of behaviour s and phenomena.
6.Max Weber’s Contribution:
Max Weber, a foundational figure in sociology, articulated this phenomenological perspective in detail.
Weber emphasized that sociological explanations of human action should begin with observing and interpreting the subjective "states of mind" of actors.
He advocated for understanding actions as meaningful, driven by individuals’ interpretations of the world around them rather than simply reacting to stimuli.
In summary, phenomenology in sociology highlights the unique characteristics of human consciousness and subjective meanings. It asserts that human actions are not mechanistic reactions but are guided by the meanings individuals attribute to their experiences. Sociological understanding, therefore, necessitates interpreting these subjective meanings to grasp the underlying motivations and reasons for human behaviour . This perspective, championed by Max Weber and others, underscores the importance of subjective experiences and interpretations in shaping social reality and individual actions.
Analysis of Phenomenology
Phenomenology in sociology offers a distinct perspective that contrasts sharply with positivist approaches.
1.Emphasis on Meaning and Understanding:
Phenomenology, particularly in interactionism, places a strong emphasis on understanding social phenomena through the meanings individuals attach to their actions and interactions.
Unlike positivism, which seeks to establish objective facts and cause-and-effect relationships through empirical observation and measurement, phenomenology focuses on interpreting subjective meanings.
Since it's impossible to directly access the thoughts and intentions of individuals, phenomenologists rely on interpretation and intuition to uncover the meanings behind actions.
This subjective approach challenges the exactitude and objectivity typically sought in the natural sciences, highlighting that social phenomena are shaped by ongoing processes of interaction and negotiation of meanings.
As a result, sociology from a phenomenological perspective is often labeled as "interpretive sociology," underscoring its focus on understanding social action through interpretative methods rather than objective measurement.
2.Critique of Positivist Approaches:
Critics of positivism argue that it oversimplifies social life by reducing human beings to passive responders to external stimuli.
Positivist sociology tends to depict individuals as influenced primarily by economic structures, social systems, and external pressures, neglecting their agency and capacity to actively shape society.
This perspective, according to phenomenologists, portrays society as a puppet theatre where individuals merely play predetermined roles assigned to them by societal structures.
Peter Berger's critique illustrates this view, suggesting that traditional sociological approaches treat individuals as puppets controlled by societal norms and roles, without acknowledging their role in actively constructing and negotiating their own reality.
3.Active Creation of Reality:
Phenomenology asserts that individuals are not passive recipients of societal influences but active creators of their social reality.
Through their interactions with others, individuals imbue their actions with meaning, construct their own interpretations of reality, and shape their behaviour s accordingly.
This perspective emphasizes that individuals are not merely acted upon by external forces but actively engage in defining and redefining their social world.
By acknowledging the role of human agency and the interpretative nature of social interactions, phenomenology highlights the dynamic and creative aspects of social life that may be overlooked by more deterministic perspectives.
In conclusion, phenomenology provides a valuable lens through which sociologists can explore the subjective meanings individuals attribute to their actions and interactions. It challenges the positivist emphasis on objective measurement and causal relationships, offering a nuanced understanding of how individuals actively engage in constructing their social reality through interpretation and interaction. This approach enriches sociological inquiry by highlighting human agency, creativity, and the complex dynamics of social interaction and meaning-making processes.
Ethnomethodology
Ethnomethodology is a sociological perspective that challenges traditional views of social order and reality. Here’s an analysis based on the points you provided:
1.Study of Methods and Procedures:
Ethnomethodology focuses on examining the methods and procedures that members of society use to construct, account for, and give meaning to their social world.
Unlike other sociological approaches that seek to uncover objective social structures or patterns, ethnomethodologists are interested in the subjective methods individuals employ in their everyday interactions.
2.Philosophical Roots in Phenomenology:
Ethnomethodology draws heavily from phenomenological philosophy, particularly acknowledging the influence of Alfred Schutz.
Phenomenology, as applied in ethnomethodology, emphasizes understanding social reality through the subjective experiences and interpretations of individuals rather than through external, objective measures.
3.Perception of Social Reality:
Ethnomethodologists start with the premise that society exists only insofar as its members perceive its existence.
This perspective aligns with phenomenology by focusing on how individuals perceive and interpret their social world, viewing social order as a product of these perceptions rather than an objective reality.
4.Critique of Objective Social Order:
Traditional sociological perspectives often assume that social order has an objective reality, with patterns and structures that exist independently of individuals’ perceptions.
Ethnomethodologists challenge this assumption by either suspending or rejecting the belief in an objective social order.
They argue that what appears to be orderly and systematic in social life is actually a construct of members’ interpretations and interactions rather than an inherent quality of the social world itself.
5.Appearance of Order:
According to ethnomethodology, social order is a "convenient fiction" or an appearance of order that is maintained by how members perceive and interpret social reality.
This appearance of order allows society to be described, explained, and understood by its members, providing a sense of coherence and accountability in social interactions.
6.Impact on Sociological Understanding:
Ethnomethodology’s approach challenges conventional sociological methods that seek to uncover underlying structures or norms.
By focusing on the methods individuals use to make sense of their social world, ethnomethodology provides insights into the dynamic and interpretive nature of social interactions.
It emphasizes the importance of studying everyday practices and interactions as essential components of understanding social life.
7.Methods and Accounting Procedures:
Ethnomethodologists are primarily interested in studying how members of society perceive, describe, and explain order in their world.
According to Zimmerman and Wieder, ethnomethodologists investigate the practical methods people use to make sense of their social environment.
8.Critique of Conventional Sociology:
Ethnomethodologists criticize mainstream sociology for treating social reality as having an objective existence independent of members’ interpretations.
They argue that conventional sociologists often treat social phenomena like suicide or crime as objective facts that require explanation, rather than recognizing them as constructs shaped by interpretations and accounts of members.
The focus of ethnomethodology is on explaining the methods and accounting procedures individuals employ to construct their social world, which they believe mainstream sociology has overlooked.
9.Comparison with Everyday Methods:
Ethnomethodologists assert that the methods used by sociologists in their research are not fundamentally different from those employed by individuals in their daily lives.
They view sociologists’ use of the documentary method, theorizing, and drawing relationships to create a picture of society as akin to how ordinary members construct their own understanding of social order.
This perspective challenges the idea that sociologists possess special insights into society beyond what ordinary individuals do through their everyday interactions and interpretations.
10.Reflexive Nature of Sociological Procedures:
Ethnomethodologists highlight that sociologists, much like ordinary individuals, reflexively engage in constructing a picture of society through their research methods.
They argue that functionalists, for example, interpret behaviour as evidence of underlying shared values, thereby constructing a view of society as orderly and systematic.
In essence, ethnomethodologists suggest that the distinctions between the sociological understanding of society and the everyday understanding of individuals are less significant than conventional sociology assumes.
Critique to Ethnomethodology:
Critiques of Ethnomethodology highlight several key points that challenge its foundational assumptions and methodologies:
1.Lack of Motives and Goals:
Critics argue that ethnomethodology paints a picture of society where individuals appear to lack clear motives or practical goals in their actions.
This perspective overlooks the reasons behind why people behave in certain ways or are compelled to behave in specific ways due to their interests and goals.
2.Neglect of Power Dynamics:
Ethnomethodology is criticized for not adequately addressing the role of power in shaping social interactions and behaviour s.
Anthony Giddens points out that there is little discussion within ethnomethodology about power dynamics and how differences in power influence the behaviour of individuals.
Understanding how power operates in society is crucial for comprehending social realities beyond just the immediate interactions that ethnomethodology focuses on.
3.Ignorance of Social Struggles and Institutional Power:
Ethnomethodologists, according to critics like Gouldner, do not sufficiently consider how social reality is shaped through struggles among competing groups and their definitions of reality.
The influence of institutionally protected power differences in defining and establishing social norms and realities is largely overlooked.
This critique suggests that ethnomethodology’s focus on everyday interactions may not capture the broader societal dynamics that influence these interactions.
4.Dismissal of Objective Realities and Constraints:
Critics argue that ethnomethodologists sometimes imply that if members of society do not recognize certain objects or events, they are unaffected by them.
This perspective neglects the fact that objective realities and constraints, such as bombs or systemic inequalities, can significantly impact individuals’ lives regardless of their awareness or recognition.
John H. Goldthorpe highlights that certain realities, like death caused by bombs, do not require individuals to be oriented towards them to experience their effects.
5.Self-Reflexivity and Endless Interpretation:
Ethnomethodology, while critiquing conventional sociology, also faces criticism regarding its own methodology and interpretations.
Giddens notes that ethnomethodological accounts should display the same characteristics as those it seeks to analyze in lay actors’ accounts.
This critique implies that ethnomethodology’s methods of accounting for accounts are subject to the same scrutiny and potential biases as any other sociological or individual account.
In conclusion, while ethnomethodology raises thought-provoking questions about social reality and the methods individuals use to create meaning in their everyday lives, it also faces significant criticisms regarding its treatment of motives, power dynamics, social struggles, and the recognition of objective realities. These critiques suggest that while ethnomethodology provides valuable insights, it may not fully capture the complexity and dynamics of social life as understood by other sociological perspectives.