Advertisement

Social Order, Rationality and Modernity

  • Feifei Zhou
Chapter
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Having analyzed in detail the empirical work done by ethnomethodologists, I will in this chapter situate Garfinkel’s theoretical conception of social order and individual members in the praxis of modern societies. Some recent publications (Hilbert, 1992; Kim, 2003; Pollner, 2012; Rawls, 2001) point out that the ethnomethodological view of man responds to the blessings and woes brought by modernity. Pollner’s article (2012) posthumously edited by Emerson and Holstein provides fresh readings of Garfinkel’s Ethnomethodology’s Program (2002) and ethnomethodology in general. Garfinkel was born in a Newark lower middle class Jewish family. When it came to deciding what profession would best suit him, his parents consulted a non-Jewish relative because for them who lived in a shtetl-like community the outside world was both strange and foreign. Drawing on this biographical information and following John Cuddihy (1974), Pollner attempts to read Garfinkel as a Jewish intellectual sensitive to the boundaries between the insider and outsider. He writes,

References

  1. Berger, P. L. (1974). Modern identity: Crisis and continuity. In W. S. Dillon (Ed.), The cultural drama: Modern identities and social ferment (pp. 158–181). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bittner, E. (1965). The concept of organization. Social Research, 32(3), 239–255.Google Scholar
  3. Cuddihy, J. M. (1974). The ordeal of civility: Freud, Marx, Lévi-Strauss, and the Jewish struggle with modernity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Durkheim, E. (1933). The Division of Labor in Society (G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1893).Google Scholar
  5. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Garfinkel, H. (2002). In A. W. Rawls (Ed.), Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkeim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Gehlen, A. (1956). Urmensch und spätkultur. Bonn: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  8. Hilbert, R. A. (1992). The classical roots of ethnomethodology: Durkheim, Weber, and Garfinkel. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kim, K. (2003). Order and agency in modernity: Talcott Parsons, Erving Goffman, and Harold Garfinkel. New York: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  10. Pollner, M. (2012). Reflections on Garfinkel and ethnomethodology’s program. The American Sociologist, 43(1), 36–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rawls, A. W. (2001). Durkheim’s treatment of practice concrete practice vs representations as the foundation of reason. Journal of Classical Sociology, 1(1), 33–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rawls, A. W. (2006). Introduction. In H. Garfinkel (Ed.), Seeing sociologically: The routine grounds of social action (pp. 1–99). Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Schelsky, H. (1987). Sociology as a science of social reality. In V. Meja, D. Msgeld, & N. Stehr (Eds.), Modern German sociology. New York: Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1959).Google Scholar
  14. Schelsky, H. (1965). Ist die dauerreflexion institutionalisierbar? In Auf der suche nache wirklichkeit. Düsseldorf: Diederichs.Google Scholar
  15. Weber, M. (2001). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Routledge. (Original work published 1904).Google Scholar
  16. Zimmerman, D. H. (1970). The practicalities of rule use. In J. Douglas (Ed.), In understanding everyday life. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Feifei Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishLingnan UniversityHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations