Human Studies

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 279–304 | Cite as

Phenomenological Life-World Analysis and Ethnomethodology’s Program

Article

Abstract

This paper discusses ethnomethodology’s program in relation to the phenomenological life-world analysis of Alfred Schutz. A recent publication of Garfinkel’s early writings sheds new light on how he made use of phenomenological reflections in order to create a new sociological approach. Garfinkel used Schutz’s life-world analysis as a source of inspiration, called for ‘misreading’ in the sense of an alternate reading and developed a new, empirical approach to the analysis of social order which he called ‘ethnomethodology’. Ethnomethodologists usually acknowledge the historical importance of Schutz but emphasize that Garfinkel succeeded to overcome the limitations of phenomenological analyses and moved beyond. This view has spread above all in the Anglosaxon countries. In German sociology, Schutz’s life-world analysis still has a much stronger standing than ethnomethodology and is interpreted as a systematic whole. Following Luckmann, it is discussed as a protosociological foundation of the methodology of social sciences or, following Srubar, as a philosophical anthropology with two poles: a subjective and a social, pragmatic pole. Both versions claim to analyze the meaningful constitution of the social world, to serve as a foundation of sociological methodology and to provide guidelines for an ‘adequate’ sociology. While Garfinkel used phenomenological concepts for sociological analysis, Luckmann clearly distinguishes the two: you either do phenomenology (protosociology) or you do sociology (a theoretically guided, empirical sociology of knowledge). This paper describes the present-day debate in German sociology and compares ethnomethodology’s program with these interpretations of Schutz’s life-world analysis.

Keywords

Life-world analysis Phenomenology Phenomenological sociology Ethnomethodology Protosociology Philosophical anthropology 

References

  1. Berger, P. L. (1963). Invitation to sociology. A humanistic sociology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  2. Berger, P. L. (1966). On existential phenomenology (II). American Sociological Review, 31, 259–260.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  4. Bergmann, J. (1987/1988). Ethnomethodologie und Konversationsanalyse. (Studienbrief mit 3 Kurseinheiten), FernUniversität GHS Hagen, Hagen.Google Scholar
  5. Bergmann, J. (2000a). Harold Garfinkel und Harvey Sacks. In U.v. Flick, E. Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Handbuch (pp. 51–62). Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  6. Bergmann, J. (2000b). Ethnomethodologie. In U.v. Flick, E. Kardorff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Handbuch (pp. 118–135). Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  7. Bird, G. (2009). What is phenomenological sociology again? Human Studies, 32, 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollnow, O. F. (1970). Philosophie der Erkenntnis. Das Vorverständnis und die Erfahrung des Neuen. Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln, Mainz: W. Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  9. Carnap, R. ([1928]1967). The logical structure of the world: Pseudoproblems in philosophy, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Coulter, J. (1979). The social construction of mind. Studies in ethnomethodology and linguistic philosophy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Dennis, A. (2004). Lynch on Schutz and science: Postanalytic ethnomethodology reconsidered. In Theory & Science, Vol. 5.1. (found on March 1, 2012 at) http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol5.1/dennis.html.
  12. Dreher, J. (2007). Einleitung. In T. Luckmann (Ed.), Lebenswelt, Identität und Gesellschaft. Schriften zur Wissens- und Protosoziologie (pp. 7–23). Ed. by Jochen Dreher. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  13. Dreher, J. (2009). Phenomenology of friendship. Construction and constitution of an existential social relationship. Human Studies, 32(4), 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eberle, T. S. (1984). Sinnkonstitution in Alltag und Wissenschaft. Der Beitrag der Phänomenologie an die Methodologie der Sozialwissenschaften. Bern/Stuttgart: Paul Haupt.Google Scholar
  15. Eberle, T. S. (1988). Die deskriptive Analyse der Oekonomie durch Alfred Schütz. In E. List & I. Srubar (Eds.), Alfred Schütz. Neue Beiträge zur Rezeption seines Werkes (pp. 69–119). Studien zur Oesterreichischen Philosophie. Ed. by R. Haller, Band XII, Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  16. Eberle, T. S. (1991). Rahmenanalyse und Lebensweltanalyse. In R. Hettlage & K. Lenz (Eds.), Erving Goffman—ein soziologischer Klassiker der zweiten Generation (pp. 157–210). Bern/Stuttgart: Paul Haupt.Google Scholar
  17. Eberle, T. S. (2000). Lebensweltanalyse und Handlungstheorie. Beiträge zur Verstehenden Soziologie. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  18. Eberle, T. S. (2008). Phänomenologie und Ethnomethodologie. In J. Raab, M. Pfadenhauer, P. Stegmeier, J. Dreher, & B. Schnettler (Eds.), Phänomenologie und Soziologie (pp. 151–161). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eberle, T. S. (2009). In search of aprioris: Schutz’s life-world analysis and Mises’s praxeology. In H. Nasu, L. Embree, G. Psathas, & I. Srubar (Eds.), Alfred Schutz and his intellectual partners (pp. 493–518). Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  20. Eberle, T. S. (2010). Phenomenological life-world analysis and the methodology of social science. Human Studies, 33(2–3), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eberle, T. S. (2012). Phenomenology and sociology: Divergent interpretations of a complex relationship. In H. Nasu & F. C. Waksler (Eds.), Interaction and everyday life: Phenomenological and ethnomethodological essays in honor of George Psathas (pp. 151–167). Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  22. Eberle, T. S., & Srubar, I. (2010). Einleitung. In A. Schütz (Ed.), Zur Methodologie der Sozialwissenschaften (pp. 9–44). ASW Vol. IV, Ed. by T. S. Eberle, J. Dreher und G. Sebald. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  23. Endress, M. (2008). Reflexive Wissenssoziologie als Sozialtheorie und Gesellschaftsanalyse. Zur phänomenologisch fundierten Analytik von Vergesellschaftungsprozessen. In J. Raab, M. Pfadenhauer, P. Stegmeier, J. Dreher, & B. Schnettler (Eds.), Phänomenologie und Soziologie (pp. 85–95). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garfinkel, H. ([1948]2006). Seeing sociologically. The routine grounds of social action. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  25. Garfinkel, H. (1952). The perception of the other. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  26. Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of, and experiments with, ‘trust’ as a condition of stable concerted action. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction (pp. 187–238). New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  27. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Garfinkel, H. (1974). The origins of the term ‘ethnomethodology’. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology. Selected readings (pp. 15–18). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  29. Garfinkel, H. (1986). Ethnomethodological studies of work. London/New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program. Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  31. Garfinkel, H. (2008). Toward a sociological theory of information. Boulder/London: Paradigm Publ.Google Scholar
  32. Grathoff, R. (1989). Milieu und Lebenswelt: Einführung in die phänomenologische Soziologie und die sozialphänomenologische Forschung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  33. Handel, W. (1982). Ethnomethodology. How people make sense. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hitzler, R., & Eberle, T. S. (2004). Phenomenological lifeworld analysis. In U. Flick, E. v. Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 57–72, B. Jenner, Trans.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: Mc Graw Hill.Google Scholar
  37. Husserl, E. ([1936]1970). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Knoblauch, H. (2011). Relativism, meaning and the new sociology of knowledge. In R. Schantz & M. Seidel (Eds.), The problem of relativism in the sociology of (scientific) knowledge (pp. 131–156). Frankfurt, Paris, Lancaster: Ontos.Google Scholar
  39. Knorr Cetina, K., & Bruegger, U. (2002). Global microstructures: The virtual societies of financial markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 905–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leiter, K. (1980). A primer to ethnomethodology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Livingstone, E. (1987). Making sense of ethnomethodology. London/New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  42. Luckmann, T. (1973). Philosophy, science, and everyday life. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Phenomenology and the social sciences (pp. 145–185). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Luckmann, T. (1979). Phänomenologie und Soziologie. In W. M. Sprondel & R. Grathoff (Eds.), Alfred Schütz und die Idee des Alltags in den Sozialwissenschaften (pp. 196–206). Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.Google Scholar
  44. Luckmann, T. (2007). Lebenswelt, Identität und Gesellschaft. Schriften zur Wissens- und Protosoziologie. Ed. by Jochen Dreher. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  45. Luhmann, N. ([1984]1995). Social systems. Translated by John Bednarz, Jr., with Dirk Baecker; foreword by Eva M. Knodt. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. [German original: Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 1984.].Google Scholar
  46. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lynch, M. (2004). Misreading Schutz: A response to Dennis on ‘Lynch on Schutz on science’. In Theory & Science, Vol. 5.1. (found on March 1, 2012 at) http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol5.1/lynch.html.
  48. Lynch, M., & Sharrock, W. (2011). Ethnomethodology. Four-Volume-Set. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. English translation by Colin Smith. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  50. Nasu, H. (2012). Alfred Schutz and sociology: Is a phenomenological sociology possible and required today? Quaderni di Teoria Sociale, N. 12, Special Issue: Sulla rilevanza della sociologia fenomenologica. Dibattito su Alfred Schutz, edited by L. Muzzetto (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  51. Parsons, T. ([1937]1968). The structure of social action. Vol. I: Marshall, Pareto, Durkheim; Vol. II: Weber, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Parsons, T. (1966). Societies: Evolutionary and comparative perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  53. Pfadenhauer, M. (2010). Peter L. Berger. Reihe ‚Klassiker der Wissenssoziologie’. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  54. Psathas, G. (Ed.). (1973). Phenomenological sociology. Issues and applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. Psathas, G. (1989). Phenomenology and sociology. Theory and research. Boston: The Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology, University Press of America.Google Scholar
  56. Psathas, G. (2004). Alfred Schutz’s influence on American sociologists and sociology. Human Studies, 27, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Psathas, G. (2009). The correspondence of Alfred Schutz and Harold Garfinkel: What was the “terra incognita” and the “treasure island”? In H. Nasu, L. Embree, G. Psathas, & I. Srubar (Eds.), Alfred Schutz and his intellectual partners (pp. 401–433). Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  58. Raab, J., Pfadenhauer, M., Stegmeier, P., Dreher, J., & Schnettler, B. (Eds.). (2008). Phänomenologie und Soziologie. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  59. Rawls, A. W. (2002). Editors’ introduction. In H. E. Garfinkel (Ed.), thnomethodology’s program. Working out Durkheim’s aphorism (pp. 1–64). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  60. Rawls, A. W. (2006). Respecifying the study of social order—Garfinkel’s transition from theoretical conceptualization to practices in details. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Seeing sociologically. The routine grounds of social action (pp. 1–97). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  61. Rawls, A. W. (2008). Editor’s introduction. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Toward a sociological theory of information (pp. 1–100). Boulder/London: Paradigm Publ.Google Scholar
  62. Scheler, M. (1922). Wesen und Formen der Sympathie. 2. Auflage. Bonn, (pp. 244–307); English Translation: The nature of sympathy, New Haven, 1954, (pp. 213–264).Google Scholar
  63. Schutz, A. (1945). On multiple realities. Philosophy and phenomenological research (June): 533–575. (Reprinted in Schutz 1962, CPI, pp. 207–259).Google Scholar
  64. Schutz, A. (1962). Collected papers (Vol. 1). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  65. Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: North-western University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Schütz, A. (2006). Sinn und Zeit. Frühe Wiener Arbeiten und Entwürfe. ASW Bd. I, Ed. by M. Michailow. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  67. Schütz, A. (2010). Zur Methodologie der Sozialwissenschaften. ASW Vol. IV, Ed. by T. S. Eberle, J. Dreher und G. Sebald. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
  68. Schutz, A. and Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world (Vol. I, R. Zaner & H. Engelhardt, Trans.). Evanston, IL: North-western University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Schutz, A. and Luckmann, T. (1989). The structures of the life-world. (Vol. II, R. Zaner & D. J. Parent, Trans.). Evanston, IL: North-western University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Schutz, A., & Parsons, T. (1978). The theory of social action: The correspondence of Alfred Schutz and Talcott Parsons. Ed. by R. Grathoff. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Sharrock, W. (2004). What Garfinkel makes of Schutz: The past, present and future of an alternate, asymmetric and inconmmensurable approach to sociology. In Theory & Science, Vol. 5.1, (found on March 1, 2012 at) http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol5.1/sharrock.html.
  72. Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1989). Epistemology: Professional scepticism. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human science (pp. 51–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Spiegelberg, H. (1982). The phenomenological movement. The Hague/Boston/London: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Srubar, I. (1988). Kosmion. Die Genese der pragmatischen Lebenswelttheorie von Alfred Schütz und ihr anthropologischer Hintergrund. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  75. Srubar, I. (1998). Phenomenological analysis and its contemporary significance. Alfred Schütz Memorial Lecture. Human Studies, 21, 121–139.Google Scholar
  76. Srubar, I. (2005). The pragmatic theory of the life world as a basis for intercultural comparison. In M. Endress, G. Psathas, & H. Nasu (Eds.), Explorations of the life-world (pp. 235–266). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Srubar, I. (2007). Phänomenologie und soziologische Theorie. Aufsätze zur pragmatischen Lebenswelttheorie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  78. Srubar, I. (2009). Kultur und Semantik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tyriakian, E. (1965). Existential phenomenology and sociology. American Sociological Review, 30, 674–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tyriakian, E. (1966). Reply to Klaja and Berger. American Sociological Review, 31, 260–264.Google Scholar
  81. Waksler, F. C. (1969). Is a phenomenological sociology possible?. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  82. Weber, M. ([1922]1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Ed. by G. Roth, & C. Wittich. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  83. Woermann, N. (2011). „The phenomenon exhibits its staff as a population”—Die reflexive Akteurskonzeption der Ethnomethodologie. In N. Lüdtke & H. Matsuzaki (Eds.), Akteur—Individuum—Subjekt: Fragen zu ‚Personalität‘und ‚Sozialität‘. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of SociologyUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations