Ethnomethodology and History: Documents and the Production of History

Ethnographic Studies, No 11, Autumn 2009 Ethnomethodology and History: Documents and the Production of History Michael Lynch, Cornell University Introduction When directed to methods that have pride of place in the social sciences and When Harold Garfinkel coined the word humanities – survey analysis, ethnomethodology, he drew an analogy interviewing, documentary with the ‘ethnosciences’ in social interpretation, and so forth – anthropology (studies of native language ethnomethodology treats these methods and practice that are likened to, and as constitutive phenomena (Garfinkel, often compared with, the disciplines of 1967: Ch. 1). This does not preclude the botany, mathematics, musicology, etc.).1 practical use of such methods, but it does However, unlike other ethnosciences, orient us to questions about how they are ethnomethodology is not focused on a tied to the production of orderly results specific subject area, but on ways of and applications. There is superficial doing things and conceptions of doing affinity with constructivism in the those things in every imaginable walk of human sciences, but also some key life. In other words, ethnomethodology differences (see Button & Sharrock, is the study of practical actions and 1993). practical reasoning, and thus far more comprehensive in its scope than any Despite its broad scope – potentially study of ‘lay’ or ‘native’ variants and covering practices of all kinds – analogs of modern disciplines. It aims ethnomethodology is most developed for rigor and systematicity, but it does and best known for studies of not use modern scientific (or other contemporaneous activities: directly academic) understandings of the world observed and/or recorded sequences of as a normative or comparative basis for practical and communicative activities in identifying distinctive properties of homes, workplaces, and other settings. untutored, everyday practices and The detailed records of moment-to- understandings. When moment activities yielded by video and ethnomethodologists turn attention to audio taping of such activities greatly work credited with scientific standing, exceeds the schematic records used or they do not perform an underlaborer’s constructed (and often preferred) in task, but instead aim to examine the almost all other social science routine research practices conducted investigations. The origin and with materials in real time settings of development of conversation analysis, conduct (Garfinkel, 2002, Ch. 9; which developed from and is still Garfinkel et al. 1981; Lynch, 1993). associated with ethnomethodology, is strongly indebted to the possibility of repeated playback, transcription and 1 analysis of tape recordings of “naturally For accounts of the origins of occurring” (not contrived for ethnomethodology, see Garfinkel (1974); Lynch (1993, 3ff.; p. 2007). 87 Ethnographic Studies, No 11, Autumn 2009 experimental purposes) activities (Sacks, Given the nominal affinity with the 1984). ethnosciences, ethnomethodology could perhaps align with the Although ethnomethodology continues anthropological/historical specialty of to include a variety of methods and ethnohistory, which uses written and oral investigative tendencies, the most materials to explore and reconstruct common type of investigation examines histories of particular indigenous orders of activity that can be peoples. This subfield has its own documented with relatively brief extracts association and quarterly journal, and and collections of extracts from tape- appears to be more established recorded and transcribed sequences of professionally than ethnomethodology conversational interaction. Given this ever has been.2 However, like the other predominant tendency, ethnosciences, its substantive ethnomethodological studies might seem reconstructive aims and methods differ to have little to say about history. from those of ethnomethodology. Like Conversely, the materials that historians ethnohistorians, ethnomethodologists typically use (records, often collected in have an interest in people’s histories, but archives, and oral testimonies about past not in order to represent cultural events) might seem too ‘thin’ to permit histories or to reconstruct how such analyses of moment-to-moment conduct histories relate to an actual past. Instead, of the kind produced in the interest is in how histories – whether ethnomethodology and conversation professionally accredited or not – are analysis. Even a tape recording of an assembled through concerted, and event of historical importance, such as a sometimes contentious, actions. There is recording of voices during what was some affinity with analyses of narrative later credited with being a significant and stories, especially the lectures on the scientific discovery, presents limited subject in Sacks (1992), which delve resources for analyzing the “local into the interactionally contingent historicity” of the documented actions in production and reception of stories. the absence of more direct access to the However, of particular interest in this original scene (Garfinkel et al., 1991). paper are histories for which what Further, ethnomethodologists and actually happened is explicitly at stake conversation analysts often profess for the parties to their production and indifference to such momentous events, reception. Documents as well as stories preferring instead to document a more have a crucial place in histories; relentless production of mundane, documents are collated, checked against everyday activities (Schegloff, 1987). It one another, and used to confirm or is thus not surprising that there has been question stories. Documents themselves very little discussion or use of can be questioned, found wanting in ethnomethodology among professional detail, and subject to contested readings, historians. Nevertheless, in this article, I but they are both raw materials and will briefly suggest at least one way in repositories for history. which history can be of interest for ethnomethodological investigations. No doubt there are others. 2 See the website for the American Society for Ethnohistory, available at: http://www.ethnohistory.org/ 88 Ethnographic Studies, No 11, Autumn 2009 this instance, I’ll be re-specifying a What follows, will start with a well- couple of key topics – one is history and known landmark in ethnomethodology – the other memory. Garfinkel’s respecification of Mannheim’s “documentary method of Much earlier, in chapter three of Studies interpretation.” Casually read, in Ethnomethodology (1967), Garfinkel Garfinkel’s demonstrations appear to elucidated one such ‘method’ - the undermine the historiographic utility of documentary method of interpretation. Mannheim’s hermeneutic method by This method was introduced by Karl showing that it is much too powerful in Mannheim (1952) in a collection of its relentless construction of narrative essays on the sociology of knowledge. coherency; too powerful in projecting Mannheim presented it as an historical sense on to the most unpromising method – an instance of the hermeneutic materials to be a reliable arbiter of what circle through which the historian actually happened. However, rather examines archival documents and than settling for a deconstructive discerns coherences – underlying approach to historical ‘method’, I will patterns that the fragmentary writings suggest that Garfinkel’s treatment and traces document, and which further provides a powerful analytical treatment become intelligible and meaningful in for investigating the substantive light of the emergent patterns.” production of history. Mannheim is respectful of the method, and appears to recommend it for scholars The Documentary Method – though he recognizes that it is an account of what scholars already do. In some of his writings in the late 1980s Garfinkel takes up this theme – the and early 1990s, Garfinkel used the term documentary method of interpretation – “respecification” to signal a re- in a startling way. First, he observes that orientation to the familiar the method is ubiquitous. Second, he methodological topics of a social science devises some ‘experiments’ of sorts to (see, for example, Garfinkel [1991]). elucidate and demonstrate its operation. These include a roster of basic themes And, third, he uses the experiments to such as meanings, standards, raise some deep and disturbing questions measurements, intelligibility, and many about the validity of the ‘underlying others. These terms are patterns’ discerned through the use of “methodological” in the broader sense this method. often associated with social theory and epistemology rather than analytical Perhaps the most famous of these technique. I once called these experiments was one in which students ‘epistopics’ (Lynch, 1993: 280ff.).3 In were asked to volunteer for a novel counseling program in which they would ask a series of questions to an unseen counselor, who would relay advice in the 3 My neologism is a ‘vulgarism’ according to my form of yes-or-no answers (Garfinkel, colleague Peter Dear, because (like the word 1967: 79ff.). Of course, in line with the sociology) it mixes Latin & Greek. Dear (1991) prefers ‘epistemography’, to suggest an classic social psychology experiments of ethnographic or historiographic approach to the that era, the ‘counselor’ was a fake, and topics of epistemology. 89 Ethnographic Studies, No 11, Autumn 2009 the answers were selected at random. can we believe when reading historical Nevertheless, most of the students found accounts? Garfinkel’s

Load more