loving language

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Garfinkel

[Image]
Harold GarfinkelPROFESSOR EMERITUS at UCLAPh. D., Harvard UniversityClass WebsitesOffice: A83 HAINES Phone: 3108253328 Fax: 310-206-9838 E-mail: garfinkel@soc.ucla.edu Mailing Address:UCLA Department of Sociology 264 Haines Hall - Box 951551 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1551 SubfieldEthnomethodologyResearch InterestsClassic studies of social order and ethnomethodological studies agree that the animal they are hunting is the production and accountability of the phenomena or order, reason, logic, etc. in, about, and as the great recurrences of immortal ordinary society, really, actually, evidently, distinctively, and in detail. A selected corpus of ethnomethodological studies offers evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, objective knowledge, evidence, detail, structure, etc., in and as of the unavoidable and irremediable haecceity of immortal ordinary society. These results are collected by and come to a head in ethnomethodological studies of discovering work in the natural sciences. The results are contrary to the classic policies, methods, claims, and findings of professional sociology and the world-wide social science movement.Selected Publications"The Work of a Discovering Science construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar," (with Eric Livingston and Michael Lynch), Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2):131-158, 1981. "Evidence for Locally Produced, Naturally Accountable Phenomena of Order*, Logic, Meaning, Method, etc., in and as of the Essentially Unavoidable and Irremediable Haeceeity of Immortal Ordinary Society: (I of IV) An Announcement of Studies," Sociological Theory '88, (6)1: 103-109, Spring 1988.
Harold Garfinkel (born 29 October 1917) is Professor Emeritus in sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles. Garfinkel took his PhD in 1952 from Harvard University, where he was supervised by Talcott Parsons. His thesis was titled "The Perception of the Other: A Study in Social Order"; it remains unpublished but highly influential, especially on the early years ofethnomethodology.EthnomethodologyGarfinkel is the originator of the ethnomethodological approach to sociology and, alongside Aaron Cicourel and Harvey Sacks, he is often cited as having been a major contributor to its development, articulation and spread. However, these three progenitors have each carved their own path. Until his death, Sacks focused on conversation analysis, a strand which has virtually cut loose from its ethnomethodological roots to become a free standing sociological method. Cicourel pioneered what he termed "Cognitive Sociology".Early ethnomethodological work was initially distributed via mimeographs. Garfinkel’s groundbreaking monograph "Studies in Ethnomethodology" was not formally published until 1967 and contains a series of essays concerning a number of distinct research projects. These essays pursue the ethnomethodological theme of the production of social order. His subsequent development of ethnomethodology has followed this pattern in that it is best seen as programmatic rather than theoretical. Garfinkel does not articulate a social theory as much as a sociological stance.Although his work is a radical rethinking of how to do sociology, he has acknowledged his intellectual debt to the more traditional figures of Émile Durkheim and Parsons, as well as to the phenomenological approach of Alfred Schütz.[1] Through his understanding of phenomenology, Garfinkel has sought to "respecify" traditional readings of Durkheim’s aphorism. Durkheim suggested that "[t]he objective reality of social facts is sociology’s fundamental principle." In an alternate formulation, he suggested that social facts should be understood as sociology’s fundamental phenomenon. Garfinkel prefers this reading and suggests a move toward a recognition that sociological facts are "locally endogenously produced, naturally organized, reflexively accountable, ongoing, practical achievement[s]."[1]Garfinkel emphasizes the indexicality of language and the difficulties this creates for the production of objective accounts of social phenomena. However, his notion of indexicality is much broader than the philosophical or linguistic concept. For Garfinkel, all talk is indexical to the context in which it takes place and/or refers. Garfinkel rejects the representational view of language, preferring the more Wittgensteinian or Austinian account of speech act theory. This means that language, speech acts and social accounts are reflexive to the settings in which they are produced: they depend upon that setting for their meaning and the setting’s meaning depends on reflexive articulation. In recognizing this, Garfinkel’s concept of the incarnate accountability of social action can be seen. All social situations are accountable by, and to, its participants in that participation in the situation itself is to produce and respond to context relevant information and cues.Ethnomethodological studies come in a wide variety of forms, including the sequential analysis of conversation; the study of social categorization practices (membership category analysis); studies of workplace settings and activities (studies of work).InfluenceGarfinkel has had a major influence on the Social Studies of Science and Science and Technology Studies. In particular, his ideas have influences initial "laboratory ethnographies" and the work of such major figures as David Bloor, Steve Woolgar, Bruno Latour and Karin Knorr-Cetina. A major recent ethnomethodology in the field isMichael Lynch's Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science.Psychiatrist R. D. Laing cited Garfinkel's "Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies" in several of his books; he considered the psychiatric interview to be an example of a degradation ceremony. This meant, in Garfinkel's terms, that the psychiatrist officially denounces (labels) a patient as mentally ill, which reduces the patient to a lower level in the scheme of social types, i.e., "separated from [and opposed to] a place in the legitimate [social] order."An excerpt from "Studies in Ethnomethodology" was included in the 1973 anthology Rules and Meanings: The Anthropology of Everyday Knowledge, edited by Mary Douglasand published by Penguin Books.Selected WorksMoon, B., ed (1946). "Color Trouble". Primer for White Folks (New York: Doubleday Doran): 269–286.(1956). "Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies".American Journal of Sociology 61: 420–424.(1956). "Some sociological concepts and methods for psychiatrists". Psychiatric Research Reports 6: 181–198.Harvey, O.J., ed (1963). "A conception of, and experiments with, 'trust' as a condition of stable concerted actions".Motivation and Social Interaction (New York: Ronald Press): 187–238.(1967) "Studies in Ethnomethodology". (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall)Shneidman, E., ed (1967). "Practical sociological reasoning: Some features in the work of the Los Angeles suicide prevention center" Essays in Self-destruction (New York: Science House): 171–186.Hill, R.; Grittenden, K., eds (1968). "Discussion: The origin of the term 'ethnomethodology'". Proceedings of the Purdue Symposium on Ethnomethodology(Institute Monograph Series #1): 15–18.With Sacks, Harvey (1970); McKinney, J.; Tiryakian, E., eds. "On formal structures of practical actions". Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments (New York: Meredith): 337–366.(1972). "A Comparison of Decisions Made on Four 'Pre-Theoretical' Problems by Talcott Parsons and Alfred Schultz" (first published in 1960).Sudnow, D., ed (1972). "Studies in the routine grounds of everyday activities". Studies in Social Interaction (New York: Free Press): 1–30 (first published in 1964).Manis, J; Meltzer, B., eds (1972). "Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies"Symbolic Interactionism (New York: Allyn & Bacon): 201–208.(1976). "An introduction, for novices, to the work of studying naturally organized ordinary activities".(1981). "The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar". Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11: 131–158.(Spring 1988). "Evidence for Locally Produced, Naturally Accountable Phenomena of Order, Logic, Meaning, Method, etc., in and as of the Essentially Unavoidable and Irremediable Haeceeity of Immortal Ordinary Society: (I of IV) An Announcement of Studies" (also known as "Parson's Plenum").Sociological Theory '88 (6) 1: 103–109.(2002). "Ethnomethodology's program: Working out Durkheim's aphorism" (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).(November 2005). "Seeing Sociologically: The Routine Grounds of Social Action".(December 2008). "Toward a Sociological Theory of Information".(August 2010). Studies in Ethnomethodology: Expanded and Updated Edition.[edit]ReferencesHarold Garfinkel at UCLAPhotos of Harold Garfinkel at the conference "Orders of Ordinary Action" in Manchester, UK in 2001.

Mary Douglas (from Wikipedia)

Dame Mary Douglas, DBE, FBA(25 March 1921 – 16 May 2007) was a British anthropologist, known for her writings on human cultureand symbolism.

Her area was social anthropology; she was considered a follower ofÉmile Durkheim and a proponent of structuralist analysis, with a strong interest in comparative religion.

Biography

She was born as Margaret Mary Tew in San Remo, Italy to Gilbert and Phyllis (née Twomey) Tew. Her father was in the British colonial service. Her mother was a devout Roman Catholic, and Mary and her younger sister, Patricia, were raised in that faith. After their mother's death, the sisters were raised by their maternal grandparents and attended the Roman Catholic Sacred Heart Convent in Roehampton (laterWoldingham School). Mary went on to study at St Anne's College, Oxford from 1939 to 1943; there she was influenced by E. E. Evans-Pritchard.

She worked in the British Colonial Office until 1947, when she returned to Oxford to take up graduate study she had left. She studied with M. N. Srinivas as well as Edward Evans-Pritchard. In 1949, she did field workwith the Lele people in what was then the Belgian Congo; this took her to village life in the region between the Kasai River and the Loange River, where the Lele lived on the edge of the previous Kuba Kingdom.

In the early 1950s, she completed her doctorate, married James Douglas. Like her, he was a Catholic and had been born into a colonial family (in Simla, while his father served in the Indian army). They would have three children. She taught at University College, London, where she remained for around 25 years, becoming Professor of Social Anthropology.

Her reputation was established by her book Purity and Danger (1966). She wrote The World of Goods(1978) with an econometrician, Baron Isherwood, which was considered a pioneering work on economic anthropology. She published on such subjects as risk analysis and the environment, consumption and welfare economics, and food and ritual, all increasingly cited outside anthropology circles.

She taught and wrote in the USA for 11 years. After four years (1977–81) as Foundation Research Professor of Cultural Studies at the Russell Sage Foundation in New York, she moved to Northwestern University as Avalon Professor of the Humanities with a remit to link the studies of theology and anthropology, and spent three years at Princeton University. In 1988, she returned to Britain, where she gave the Gifford Lectures in 1989.

In 1989, she was elected a Fellow of the British Academy. She became a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in 1992, and was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire (DBE) in the Queen's New Year's Honours List published on 30 December 2006. She died on 16 May 2007 in London, aged 86, from complications of cancer, survived by her three children. Her husband died in 2004.

Contributions to anthropology

Mary Douglas is best known for her interpretation of the book of Leviticus, and for her role in creating the cultural theory of risk.

Douglas' book Purity and Danger is considered a key text in social anthropology.

The line of enquiry in Purity and Dangertraces the words and meaning of dirt in different contexts. What is regarded as dirt in a given society is any matter considered out of place (Douglas takes this lead from William James). She attempts to clarify the differences between the sacred, the clean and the unclean in different societies and times. Through a complex and sophisticated reading of ritual, religion and lifestyle she challenges Western ideas of pollution, making clear how the context and social history is essential.

In Purity and Danger, Douglas first proposed that the kosher laws were not, as many believed, either primitive health regulations or randomly chosen as tests of Jews' commitment to God. Instead, Douglas argued that the laws were about symbolic boundary-maintenance. Prohibited foods were those that did not seem to fall neatly into any category. For example, pigs' place in the natural order was ambiguous because they shared the cloven hoof of the ungulates, but did not chew cud.

Later in a 2002 preface to Purity and Danger, Douglas went on to retract her initial explanation of the kosher rules, saying that it had been "a major mistake." Instead, she proposed that "the dietary laws intricately model the body and the altar upon one another" as of land animals, Israelites were only allowed to eat animals that were also allowed to be sacrificed: animals that depend on herdsmen. Thus, Douglas concludes that animals that are abominable to eat are not in fact impure, as the "rational, just, compassionate God of the Bible would [never] have been so inconsistent as to make abominable creatures." Douglas makes it clear in Purity and Danger that she does not endeavour to judge religions as pessimistic or optimistic in their understanding of purity or dirt as positive (dirt affirming) or otherwise.

In Natural Symbols (first published 1970), Douglas introduced the interrelated concepts of "group" (how clearly defined an individual's social position is as inside or outside a bounded social group) and "grid" (how clearly defined an individual's social role is within networks of social privileges, claims and obligations). The group-grid pattern was to be refined and redeployed in laying the foundations of cultural theory.

Works

The Lele of the Kasai (1963)
Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo(1966)
Pollution (1968)
Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (1970)
Rules and Meanings. The Anthropology of Everyday Knowledge: Selected Readings, edited by Mary Douglas (Penguin Books, 1973).
Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology (1975)
Jokes, in Rethinking Popular Culture: Contemporary Perspectives in Cultural Studies (1975); edited by Chandra Mukerji and Michael Schudson
The World of Goods (1979) with Baron Isherwood
Evans-Pritchard (1980)
Risk and Culture (1980) with Aaron Wildavsky
In the Active Voice (1982)
How Institutions Think (1986)
Missing persons: a critique of the social sciences (1988) with Steven Ney
Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory (London: Routledge, 1992).
In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (1993)
Thought styles: Critical essays on good taste (1996)
Leviticus as Literature (1999)
Constructive Drinking: Perspectives on Drink from Anthropology(2002)
Jacob's Tears: The Priestly Work of Reconciliation (2004)
Thinking in Circles (2007)
External links
Mary Douglas Papers, 1948–1985, Northwestern University Archives, Evanston, Illinois
Sketch from Univ of Pennsylvania as Honorary degree recipient in 2000
Mary Douglas at the National Portrait Gallery.
Bibliography
Obituary in The Guardian
Obituary in The Times
Obituary in The Daily Telegraph, 22 May 2007.
New York Times obituary available in Cache version
The Star Obituary
Commonweal Anthropology with a Difference
Mary Douglas interviewed by Alan Macfarlane, 26 February 2006 (film).
A web site exploring the continuing legacy of Mary Douglas, especially with reference to her Grid-Group typology.

Monday, May 4, 2009

It can come across as offensive.

Ok what does that mean? What specifically will it do to your identity and your relationship with those offended? How would it alter the way those people interact with you? Would they relegate you to the status of tolerated acquaintance? Would it make them reluctant to introduce you to their significant other or their family or their boss?

Kyle, Susan, Allie, Whitney S. : China and Proxemics

Really nice work on this discovery: women's interaction with women and women's interaction with men are most similar in American culture, and men's interaction with men is the most different, whereas in Chinese culture women's and women's and men's and men's are the most similar, where mixed interactions are the most different.