Human Studies

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 67–92

Structure and Agency in Scholarly Formulations of Racism

Theoretical Paper

Abstract

That the issue of racism is a pressing social concern which requires serious and detailed attention is, for ethnomethodology, not a first principle from which its own inquiry is launched but rather a matter to be considered in light of how mundane actors (both professional and lay) treat that very topic. This paper explores how the assumption of an ontological distinction between social structure and individual agency is integral to the intelligibility of racism as formulated in scholarly accounts. In particular, I explore how recent scholarly treatments of racism pose as problematic the diverse formulations of racial identity assembled through the deployment of various measures, and then seek to adjudicate upon the resulting inconsistency with an analytic heuristic that assumes an underlying or foundational source for the various expressions it seeks to resolve. Further, I explore examples of analytic work that makes use of first-person accounts of racially significant episodes and experiences as a means to document the formulation of the events and actions those accounts describe in terms that warrant a reading informed by the assumption of the structure-agency distinction. I relate the corroborative work that takes place in the research relationships between students and teachers with ethnomethodology’s own project to explore how the efficaciousness of analytic readings of racism entail the pervasive assumption of the structure-agency distinction in order to be rendered them with the sense they have for the various participants involved.

Keywords

Accountability Ethnomethodology Ontology Race Racism Structure and agency 

References

  1. Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Boden, D., & Zimmerman, D. H. (Eds.). (1991). Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States (2nd ed.). Lenhan, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Bonilla-Silva, E., & Biaocchi, G. (2008). Anything but racism: How sociologists limit the significance of racism. In T. Zuberi & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White logic, white methods: Racism and methodology (pp. 137–151). Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Buttny, R. (1993). Social accountability in communication. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Buttny, R. (2004). Talking problems: Studies of discursive construction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  7. Button, G. (Ed.). (1991). Ethnomethodology and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, D. (1999). Emotion discourse. Culture & Psychology, 5, 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies, 7(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  12. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Garfinkel, H. (1974). The origins of the term ‘ethnomethodology’. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology: Selected readings (pp. 15–18). Harmondsworth: Penguin Education.Google Scholar
  14. Garfinkel, H. (1996). Ethnomethodology’s program. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garfinkel, H. (2002). In A. Rawls (Ed.), Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Garfinkel, H. (2006). Seeing sociologically: The routine grounds of social action. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology: Perspectives and developments (pp. 337–366). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Goffman, E. (1990). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  21. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hilbert, R. A. (1992). The classical roots of ethnomethodology: Durkheim, Weber, and Garfinkel. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hilbert, R. A. (1995). Garfinkel’s recovery of themes in classical sociology. Human Studies, 18(2–3), 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hopkins, N., Reicher, S., & Levine, M. (1997). On the parallels between social cognition and the ‘new racism’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 305–329.Google Scholar
  25. Husserl, E. (1969). Formal and transcendental logic. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  26. Husserl, E. (1981). Philosophy as a rigorous science. In P. McCormick & F. A. Elliston (Eds.), Husserl: Shorter works. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hutchinson, P., Read, R., & Sharrock, W. (2008). There is no such thing as a social science: In defense of Peter Winch. Hampshire, England and Burlington, VA: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  29. Kleiner, B. (1998). The modern racist ideology and its reproduction in “pseudo-argument”. Discourse & Society, 9(2), 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1988). The micro-social order: Towards a reconception. In N. G. Fielding (Ed.), Actions and structure: Research methods and social theory (pp. 20–53). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Knorr Cetina, K., & Cicourel, A. V. (Eds.). (1981). Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro and macro-sociologies. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  32. Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern, (C. Porter, Trans.). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  33. Liberman, K. (2007). Husserl’s criticism of reason: With ethnomethodological specifications. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  34. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and the social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(3), 26–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lynch, M. (2009). Ethnomethodology and history: Documents and the production of history. Ethnographic Studies, 11, 87–106.Google Scholar
  37. Mannheim, K. (1952). On the interpretation of Weltanschauung. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays in the sociology of knowledge (pp. 53–63). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  38. McKenzie, K. (2003). Discursive psychology and "the new racism". Human Studies, 26(4), 461–491.Google Scholar
  39. McKenzie, K. (2009). The humanitarian imperative under fire. Journal of Language & Politics, 8, 333–358.Google Scholar
  40. Mehan, H., & Wood, H. (1975). The reality of ethnomethodology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Mills, C. W. (1940). Situated action and the vocabulary of motives. American Sociological Review, 5, 904–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Picca, L. H., & Feagin, J. R. (2007). Two-faced racism: Whites in the backstage and frontstage. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sacks, H. (1974). On the analyzability of stories by children. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  46. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–70). Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  48. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text, whose context? Discourse & Society, 8(2), 165–187.Google Scholar
  49. Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Reply to Wetherell. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 462–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sharrock, W. (1974). On owning knowledge. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology: Selected readings (pp. 45–53). Harmondsworth: Penguin Education.Google Scholar
  53. Sharrock, W. (2004). What Garfinkel makes of Schutz: The past, present and future of an alternate, asymmetric and incommensurable approach to sociology. Theory & Science. Available at http://theoryandscience.icapp.org/content/vol5.1/sharrock.html.
  54. Sharrock, W., & Anderson, R. J. (1987). Epilogue: The definition of alternatives: Some sources of confusion in interdisciplinary discussion. In G. Button & R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 290–321). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.Google Scholar
  55. Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1991). Epistemology: Professional scepticism. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 51–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sharrock, W., & Button, G. (1991). The social actor: Social action in real time. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 137–175). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Smith, D. (1978). K is mentally ill: The anatomy of a factual account. Sociology, 12, 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sniderman, P. M., & Piazza, P. (1993). The scar of race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Stokoe, E., & Edwards, D. (2007). ‘Black this, black that’: Racial insults and reported speech in neighbour complaints and police interrogations. Discourse & Society, 18(3), 337–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wetherell, M. (2001). Debates in discourse research. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp. 380–399). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  64. Widdicombe, S., & Wooffitt, R. (1995). The language of youth subcultures: Social identity in action. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  65. Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  66. Woolgar, S., & Pawluch, D. (1985). Ontological gerrymandering: The anatomy of social problems explanations. Social Problems, 32(3), 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Žižek, S. (2006). The parallax view. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Žižek, S., & Milibank, J. (2009). In C. Davis (Ed.), The monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or dialectic? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program in Conflict Studies and Dispute ResolutionUniversity of North Carolina at GreensboroGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations