Abstract
The text deals with Harold Garfinkels theorizing of what Karl Mannheim called ‘documentary meaning’, and established as a foundation of all historical disciplines, and what Garfinkel calls the ‘documentary method’ of lay and professional sociological reasoning. The commentary tries to establish the systematical position of the chapter in Garfinkel’s ‘Studies in Ethnomethodology’, and, indeed, in Garfinkel’s social theory at the time of publication. This position involves, and redefines, Weber’s definition of sociology, Schütz’s sociology of knowledge and especially, the very idea of a common stock of. typifications, and the discovery of ‘historical time’, or ‘Geschichtlichkeit’ in each micro-sequential interaction. Some consequences are drawn, or sketched, for ethnomethodology as a steady thorn in the side of sociology, and vice versa: for lay and professional sociology as an equally steady thorn in the midst of ethnomethodology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bellman, B. L. (1981). The paradox of secrecy. Human Studies, 4(1), 1–24.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966 [1967]). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday. (Paperback: New York: Anchor Books).
Bohnsack, R., Nentwig-Geesemann, I., & Nohl, A.-M. (2001). Die dokumentarische Methode und ihre Forschungspraxis. Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Opladen: Springer VS.
Garfinkel, H. (1959). Common sense knowledge of social structures. In 4th world congress of sociology. Stresa (Italy), manuscript.
Garfinkel, H. (1962). Common-sense knowledge of social structures: The documentary method of interpretation. In J. M. Scher (Ed.), Theories of the mind (pp. 689–712). New York: The Free Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (1973). Das Alltagswissen über soziale und innerhalb sozialer Strukturen. In Arbeitsgruppe Bielefelder Soziologen (Ed.), Alltagswissen, Interaktion und gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit (1), Symbolischer Interaktionismus und Ethnomethodologie (pp. 189–262). Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program. Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Latour, B. (1993). Wir sind nie modern gewesen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Mannheim K. (1951[1921/22]). On the interpretation of ‘Weltanschauung’. In K. Mannheim (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 33–82). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
McHugh, P. (1968). Defining the situation. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
McHugh, P. (1969). Defining the situation: The organization of meaning in social interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Zeitlyn, D. (1990). Professor Garfinkel visits the soothsayers. Ethnomethodology and Mambila divination. Man (N.S.), 25, 654–666.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schüttpelz, E. From Documentary Meaning to Documentary Method: A Preliminary Comment on the Third Chapter of Harold Garfinkel’s Studies in Ethnomethodology. Hum Stud 42, 221–237 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-019-09512-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-019-09512-8