Harold Garfinkel

El habla interaccional, i.e., el habla natural que ocurre en toda interacción social humana, ha sido desde nuestros orígenes la herramienta determinante del progreso de nuestra especie, el nutriente indispensable de nuestro bienestar mental y el medio social más efectivo que tenemos para entendernos y comprendernos como humanos. Este texto, es el primer libro en español que presenta el método y la metodología del análisis conversacional (AC): una forma de investigar cualitativamente el habla interaccional. El libro define la disciplina del AC, describiendo sus orígenes etnometodológicos y sociológicos de los trabajos de Harvey Sacks; muestra y demuestra sus bases metodológicas (como la transcripción jeffersoniana y los procedimientos de análisis) y describe los conceptos utilizados para el análisis estructural de la conversación (como el par adyacente, la preferencia, la composición y la posición). La acción social – unidad de análisis del AC – es tomada como el elemento central del libro: se reportan los descubrimientos fundacionales que se han hecho sobre, las consideradas, acciones sociales básicas de la interacción humana:  reparación, informe, evaluación y petición. Finalmente, el libro presenta ejemplos concretos de diferentes áreas de investigación en donde se aplican los conocimientos generados en el AC, concretamente se presenta su aplicación en el análisis lingüístico, en el análisis de la interacción institucional, en la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras y en las investigaciones sobre la interacción entre humanos y robots.

This book discribes the main current sociological paradigms. Attention is paid to the main focus of the theories and their methodological consequences. In ten chapters the following theories are discussed: M. Weber, E. Durkheim, functionalism, the critical sociology of the Frankfurter Schule, the radical sociology, symbolic interactionism, exchange theory,.ethnomethodology, critical theory of J. Habermas,.and systemstheory of N. Luhmann.

In this book, Anastasia Marinopoulou conducts a systematic comparison of modern epistemology and the epistemological concerns of the Frankfurt School, addressing phenomenology, structuralism and poststructuralism, modernism and postmodernism, systems theory and critical realism. Beginning with an examination of twentieth-century epistemology, particularly the concept of lifeworld (Lebenswelt), Marinopoulou traces the development of the field up to the present day, considering basic conceptions such as dialectics, theory and practice in science, and the potential for a political epistemology based on the arguments of critical theory. Throughout this, she provides a concrete analysis of the work of leading Frankfurt School figures, including Horkheimer, Adorno and Habermas, and raises key questions on methodology in science and research. The book contains previously unpublished commentary from Jürgen Habermas (on systems theory), William Outhwaite (on critical realism) and Stefan Müller-Doohm (on the Frankfurt School), provided to the author in recent interviews. It is organized to be of practical use for undergraduate and postgraduate students, and each chapter includes graphs and schemata that condense the basic argument for the area of modern epistemology and methodology under examination.

Статья представляет анализ конструирования гендерного порядка в общественных туалетах и гендерных норм вообще.
В статье рассмотрена история туалетных комнат и развитие бинарных гендерных туалетов, обобщены идеи о гендере, в целом, и гендерном делении в публичных туалетных комнатах. Теоретико-методологической основой исследования является этнометодологический подход. Авторами анализируется специфика конструирования гендера и способы нормализации гендерного порядка в социокультурном пространстве общественных туалетов. Эмпирической
базой исследования послужили результаты трех «кризисных
экспериментов» (20 участников эксперимента) в туалетных комнатах двух университетов Санкт-Петербурга (СПбГУ) и Нижнего Новгорода (ННГУ).

The paper sketches out a praxeological history of the credit card, with an emphasis on its mediating qualities. Temporal borrowing via credit card is regarded as a highly dynamic neighborhood technology that produces emergent topologies through distrib- uted mobile payments. The formative years of the American credit card (1950–1975) are analyzed along with approaches from ethnomethodology (Harold Garfinkel) and actor network theory (Michel Callon). Cooperative media practices are key to understanding the relation between a neighborhood technology and its social networks, including (1) Dining, traveling and charging, (2) Accounting for trust and credit, (3) Mass mailing and advertising new ways of payment, (4) Building “co-opetitive” platforms for networks and (5) the digital momentum of credit cards.

On pourra lire ici la première d'un ouvrage (encore sans éditeur) sur "La théorie de l'étiquetage" (Vol. I) qui traite des sources de ce paradigme en sociologie de la déviance. Les auteurs classiques des années 50-60 sont présentés et situés dans le "collège invisible" des recherches en sociologie de la déviance pour l'essentiel formaté par l'interactionnisme symbolique de Dewey, Mead, Faris, Blumer, Thrasher, Lindesmith et d'autres. Un chapitre est conscacré à l'apport de l'ethnométhodologie de Garfinkel et son réseau d'influence sur Kitsuse, Cicourel, et la psychologue Evelyn Hooker. On tente d'apporter un éclairage théorique et des repères pour comprendre la nature de ce système connecté aux grandes questions des années 50-60 : mouvement pour les droits, féminisme, protestation contre la Guerre du Vietnam. Autour de 1968, la gauche américaine sombre dans un déclin indescriptible. Nombre de ceux qui avaient écrit sur la théorie de l'"étiquetage quittent le navire (ce que j'appelle "la Sécession") par lâcheté ou démagogie voir opportunisme. Jusqu'à la fin des annes 1970 la théorie de l'étiquetage se maintient et fait des adeptes dans les disciplines voisines (psychologie, anthropologie, psychiatrie, histoire, etc.). L'ouvrage se clôt sur une bibliographie concernant le Volume I.

Io venni fuori, sculacciata e lavata in quest'ordine. Dopo avermi avvolta in una coperta mi esposero tra altri sei bebè, quattro maschi e due femmine, tutti quanti, diversamente da me, con il cartellino giusto. Jeffrey Eugenides, Middlesex La cultura è stata spesso presentata come un oggetto coerente e discreto, una trama senza smagliature. La così detta svolta culturale nelle scienze sociali ha indubbiamente avuto la funzione di mostrare le tensioni, le rotture e le ricuciture che compongono la trama della cultura, andando ad analizzare i punti di frizione, mettendo il dito sui costi personali e sociali delle rappacificazioni, esplorando le possibilità dei soggetti di fare proprio, modificandolo e ricucendoselo addosso, il tessuto della cultura. La metafora del ricucirsi addosso la cultura evoca immediatamente alcune delle differenze che diamo maggiormente per scontate, quelle di genere, sessualità, razza, età, e così via; tutte differenze che hanno a che fare con quella dimensione spesso definita come "naturale" che identifichiamo con il "corpo". Anche il contrapporsi sempre più evidente di forme differenti di essere (nel) corpo e l'emersione di soggetti che rivendicano uno spazio non marginale per la propria "diversità" ha portato in primo piano la relazione fra corpo, cultura e potere nelle società contemporanee occidentali. Tra questi soggetti spiccano le persone con caratteri razziali o caratteri sessuali misti, persone che si collocano letteralmente, con i propri corpi, tra alcune delle classificazioni culturali più salde nelle nostre società sfidandone l'ovvietà.

Few contemporary sociologists are as creative as Erving Goffman. One product of this creativity is frame analysis (Goffman, 1974), a method that is both admired and neglected. Comparing Goffman's approach to other paradigms seems not only to be a negation of the creativity of this writer, but is strongly disliked by Goffman (1981b)
when such comparisons have nothing but labelling as their purpose.
It is not the function of this paper to place frame analysis in one or another theoretical pigeon-hole. Frame analysis is a sociological approach in its own right. Nevertheless, Goffman accepts different standpoints of symbolic interaction (G.H. Mead), ethnomethodology
and phenomenological sociology (A. Schutz) even when he
denies others. I intend here to present the differences and similarities between Goffman's frame analysis on the one hand, and Blumer's symbolic interaction, Schutz's phenomenological sociology,and Garfinkel' s ethnomethodology on the other hand in function of three questions. (1) What are the presuppositions in
relation to reality, knowledge, man and society used in the four paradigms? (2) What is the object of sociology? (3) What are the methodological principles? Moreover, I want to show that in spite of different accents, the frame analysis approach can already be found in the earlier work of Goffman.

Ahora que han caído en descrédito las narrativas que hablaban de sociedades lejanas, puras y distintas, este libro recupera la fascinación de las teorías de la cultura examinando críticamente las principales tendencias de los últimos años del siglo XX y las que hoy se están elaborando de cara al futuro: la etnografía multi­situada neo-posmoderna, las múltiples encarnaciones del evolucionismo y el retorno insólito de la etnografía boasiana, puesta al día por las epistemes de Foucault y por un espeso sentimiento de corrección política.

El autor interroga también formulaciones algo más clásicas ligadas a la interpretación simbólica, al estructuralismo y a la decons­trucción, deteniéndose en la experiencia fallida de la Nueva Etnografía, centrada en lo que pareció ser la utopía del análisis componencial de los significados. La exploración de las formas teóricas de la disciplina se completa con una crónica de las numerosas antropologías fenome­noló­gicas, desde la apropiación del empirismo tras­cen­dental y las búsquedas historicistas de la comprensión, pasando por las explosiones  de la etnometodología y el interaccionismo simbólico y llegando hasta los improbables relatos de Carlos Castaneda, exactamente igual de verdaderos que los de (pongamos) Lobsang Rampa.

Lejos de ser una mera actualización de Corrientes en Antropología Contemporánea, este libro no se distrae tampoco con disciplinariedades que podrían pasar por antropología pero que desde el punto de vista de su dialógica intertextual y de la tradición frente a la cual se plantan no lo son cabalmente.

Selon Garfinkel, l'ordre social consiste en l’ensemble des activités ordinaires régies par des règles définissant des normes, auxquelles les individus souscrivent et qu’ils intègrent comme allant de soi. Ces normes agissent comme des codes qui fondent un socle commun aux interactions quotidiennes.

La spécificité de l’article de Garfinkel est sa tentative de mettre à jour les traits caractéristiques de ce socle, de le dénaturaliser afin d'exercer une réflexion avertie sur le vivre ensemble.

La thèse de Garfinkel dans cet article pourrait être ainsi résumée : les membres de la société ne sont pas des idiots. Garfinkel entend ici se placer à l’échelon le plus élémentaire de la société, pour comprendre ce qui confère son caractère familier au monde social, et qui, par la même occasion, lui donne un sens du point de vue des acteurs.
Dans un premier temps, on détaillera les différentes expériences que Garfinkel fait dans le but de mettre en évidence ce qui sous-tend la compréhension commune en société (I). Dans ce qui suit, on tentera de montrer en quoi la démarche mise en œuvre dans cet article est en réalité typique de l’ethnométhodologie et définit un concept théorique critique : l’idiot garfinkelien (II). On finira par une réflexion sur la postérité de l’hyper interactionnisme et son association avec d’autres disciplines telles que la linguistique ou une certaine forme de psychologie, ainsi que sur les implications possible de l’analyse ethnométhodologique sur le contrat social (III).

This article is the editors’ introduction to the transcript of a lecture that Harold Garfinkel delivered to a seminar in 1993. Garfinkel extensively discusses the relevance of Aron Gurwitsch’s phenomenological treatment of Gestalt theory for ethnomethodology. Garfinkel uses the term “misreading” to signal a respecification of Gurwitsch’s phenomenological investigations, and particularly his conceptions of contextures, functional significations, and phenomenal fields, so that they become compatible with detailed observations and descriptions of social actions and interactions performed in situ. Garfinkel begins with Gurwitsch’s demonstrations with line drawings and other abstract examples, and suggests how they can be used to suggest original procedures for investigating the vicissitudes of embodied practical actions in the lifeworld. This introduction to the lecture aims to provide some background on the scope of Gurwitsch’s phenomenological critique and elaboration of Gestalt theory and Garfinkel’s “misreading” of it in terms of his own conceptions of indexicality and accountability, and ethnomethodological investigations of the production
of social order.

Durante la década de los años 1960-70, comenzaron y se extendieron diferentes críticas a la metodología empleada, sobre todo en la sociología. Estas críticas desafiaban varios de los presupuestos más familiares de esta disciplina, con rezagos más bien positivistas, y acentuaban la idea de que la realidad social era algo construido, producido y vivido por sus miembros, es así también como las primeras respuestas a la Etnometodología le formulaban múltiples objeciones, muchas de las cuales eran totalmente incompatibles entre sí y esto tuvo como resultado un periodo en el que las discusiones de la nueva perspectiva producían mucho ruido y pocas cuestiones rescatables, esto puesto a que la obra de Garfinkel no era del todo bien entendida ya que los escritos de Garfinkel son sumamente densos y, en ocasiones, opacos y crípticos, es por esto que la Etnometodología llego a ser interpretada como un método sin sustancia o peor aún como vehículo para la negociación de la propia organización social, una especie de sociología del "todo vale".

Cet article reprend, à la lumière des épistémologies féministes, un questionnement proprement sociologique. Il aborde en effet la catégorie « femme » en tant qu’elle est une modalité du classement des personnes en fonction du genre. Discutant les conceptualisations de C. Delphy et I. M. Young, il commence par souligner avec J. Widmer que le genre n’a, en réalité, pas la capacité de définir les relations sociales. Il montre par ailleurs, en s’appuyant sur les travaux de H. Sacks notamment, qu’il est important (a) de distinguer entre femme comme « individu empirique » et femme comme « classe de personne » et (b) de prendre en compte les pratiques ordinaires de catégorisation des personnes. Ces deux principes sont en effet les conditions nécessaires au développement d’une sociologie pleine et entière, qui traite les catégories de sexe comme des thèmes de l’enquête et non pas comme des ressources pour la mener. L’article discute ensuite la philosophie poststructuraliste du genre de Judith Butler. Cette théorie offre, avec la notion de performance, une approche adéquate des identités de genre dans la mesure où celles-ci sont conçues comme des phénomènes émergeant dans l’action. Confrontée à l’ethnométhodologie du genre de H. Garfinkel, dont elle partage un nombre certain de similarités, il apparaît toutefois que la thèse de H. Butler ne permet pas de rendre compte des catégories de sexe en usage, en raison d’une conception inaboutie de la scénarité du monde social. De l’autre côté, la thèse de l’accomplissement du genre soutenue par l’ethnométhodologie de H. Garfinkel se montre incapable de penser « le faire à nouveau » autrement que comme « un faire à l’identique ». À partir de l’analyse de quelques situations de la vie quotidienne, l’article tente alors de mettre en œuvre une sociologie praxéologique des catégories de sexe qui échappe à cette double aporie.

There is a general agreement among critics and readers that the works of Pierre Bourdieu and Harold Garfinkel are to be regarded as incommensurably different in many respects, and in fact a substantive divergence between them has been expressed even during a face-to-face meeting by the interested parties. On this background, this essay intends to go against the grain, with the aim of reconsidering certain profound similarities that nevertheless seem to exist between the sociological approaches of the two authors under discussion. The practice turn in contemporary social action theory is the specific focus of this analysis: it is precisely at the level of an anti-objectivist epistemology that putting alongside Bourdieu and Garfinkel's proposals appears to be fruitful. In view of the complexity and difficulties of avoiding risks inherently associated with the study of practical activities, the integration of both Bourdieu and Garfinkel's points of view about social action is considered crucial -and is the ultimate goal of this article.

Perché mentre l'espressione "dichiaratamente gay" è così usata l'equivalente "apertamente etero" non lo è? Quali sono gli assunti che stanno alle spalle di locuzioni come "donna in carriera" o "infermiere maschio"? Perché Obama è considerato un uomo di colore con una madre bianca anziché un uomo bianco con un padre di colore? È davvero così naturale scandire lo scorrere del tempo con cicli di sette giorni che chiamiamo settimane? Se è vero che ci vuole una mente davvero insolita per intraprendere l'analisi dell'ovvio, insolitamente affascinante è il viaggio che Zerubavel -figura singolare nel panorama della sociologia contemporanea- compie fra i mari (fra gli oceani) di ciò che diamo per scontato: l'infinità di fatti sociali che prendiamo per buoni senza neanche rendercene conto, senza neanche pensare che siano qualcosa di sociale.

This article argues that the symbolic interactionist sources of the first generation of constructivists in IR theory are worth recovering because of their ability to address what constructivists have always wanted to understand – the social construction of world politics. Symbolic interactionism is more or less implicit in key claims of canonical works of the first generation of constructivism in International Relations (IR) theory. However, constructivism lost some of its potential to address everyday experiences and performances of world politics when it turned to norm diffusion and socialisation. The second generation of constructivists generated rich insights on the construction of national identities and on patterns of foreign policy, but did not fully exploit constructivism's analytical potentials. Contrary to what most IR scholars have come to believe, symbolic interactionists saw the self as a deeply social – not a psychological or biological – phenomenon. Symbolic interactionism is interested in how inherently incomplete and fragile selves are constructed and deconstructed through processes of inclusion, exclusion and shaming. Today, third generation constructivists are returning to the sociology of Erving Goffman and Harold Garfinkel and other symbolic interactionists to address problems of identity, power and deviance in international politics.

What might a disciplined inquiry into events occurring always for "another first time " (Garfinkel, 1967) look like? Whilst traditionally, we have always sought a hidden order behind appearances, this may be a misleading aim in human affairs. In this paper I argue that this is to begin our investigations too late in the day. It leads us to think of people as being already self-conscious, self-contained individuals, acting and speaking mostly in a wilful and intellectual manner. Indeed many have interpreted Wittgenstein's later philosophy, and his claim that the meaning of a word is its use in the language, in this light: as if he was concerned with words used as tools or as making moves in a language-game according to pre-existing rules. In this view, words have meaning only if they are systematically connected with states of affairs and/or states of mind. There is, however, another side to Wittgenstein: a concem with the beginnings of language-games in our spontaneous bodily reactions, and with such reactions as being the prototypes for new ways of thinking rather than as the results of ones already in existence. Here, meaning is understood in terms of one's direct and immediate responsiveness to one's surroundings. This paper explores this side of Wittgenstein's thought, and relates it both to his claim that many events in human affairs can be 'explained' simply by giving descriptions, and to outlining a set of practical methods for beginning new practices, practices that can begin by noticing the presence within our old practices of previously unnoticed spontaneous bodily reactions.

La vie et la sociologie d'Alfred Schütz et ses échanges avec Harold Garfinkel " Vivre, c'est passer d'un espace à un autre en essayant le plus possible de ne pas se cogner " George Perec Résumé : La vie est organisée sous la forme de rituels. Le monde tel qu'il se donne à nous est d'emblée organisé. Cependant, nous constituons une génération étrangère au rituel qui consiste à écrire des lettres et à en recevoir. De plus, les lettres voyagent et nous emportent. En suivant son parcours, une lettre tisse un fil imaginaire reliant chacun des acteurs-complices nécessaires-et dessine ainsi une cartographie dont les points sont éloignés dans l'espace et le temps. Schütz a vécu l'exil et une époque dont les stratégies de communication sont aujourd'hui considérées comme désuètes en raison des avancées technologiques et de la promptitude qu'elles offrent. Ainsi, notre objectif sera de présenter un Schütz dont la théorie peut être reliée à son « histoire de voyageur », une histoire marquée par le déclenchement de la Seconde Guerre mondiale qui fera de lui un exilé, tout d'abord à Paris, puis de façon définitive aux États-Unis. Autrement dit, notre objectif est de présenter une théorie en lien avec une vie « en mouvement » ou plutôt liée au mouvement de sa propre vie. Afin de soutenir notre démarche, nous allons tenter d'établir des relations entre sa biographie et sa théorie à travers son univers épistolaire, ses multiples déplacements et changements géographiques.

La transidentité de Chelsea (Bradley) Manning relève d’une production de genre dont l’analytique de la performance, à laquelle s’adossent les théories dramaturgiques de Judith Butler et Harold Garfinkel, ne peut rendre compte qu’en partie seulement. Le rapport particulier à la visibilité que cette figure publique entretient nécessite de développer une analytique de la reconnaissance ancrée dans la phénoménologie capacitaire de Paul Ricœur. L’examen de trois événements significatifs du parcours de vie de Chelsea (Bradley) Manning dans l’espace public anglo-saxon donne l’occasion d’observer différentes modalités de la reconnaissance et de discuter les présupposés qui grèvent les théories du genre de Butler et Garfinkel.

- - -



Chelsea (Bradley) Manning’s trans identity stems from a gender production that can only partially be explained by the performance analytics underpinning the dramaturgical theories of Judith Butler and Harold Garfinkel. Manning’s particular relationship with visibility as a public figure predicates the need for a recognition analytics anchored in Paul Ricœur’s capacitating phenomenology. Examination of three significant events in Chelsea (Bradley) Manning’s life in the Anglo-Saxon public sphere provides an opportunity to observe different modalities of recognition and discuss the assumptions that underlie the theories of Butler and Garfinkel.

O principal objetivo desse trabalho é discutir os significados (re) produzidos através das representações sociais, compartilhados nos contextos da docência e o modo como tais discursos orientam a forma de pensar e de agir dos sujeitos implicados, em face da experiência e critica destes mesmos discursos. Essa produção é oriunda da pesquisa: Representações Sociais da Profissão Docente: discursos, papéis e (re) produção de sentidos, desenvolvida na Universidade do Estado da Bahia -UNEB, Campus VIII entre os anos de 2012 e 2013. Por fim, destaca-se a valorização dos aspectos intersubjetivos do discurso e de suas representações, acessíveis aos sujeitos da docência enquanto produções de sua autoria, destacando a autonomia, a consciência crítica e emancipatória presentes nestas linguagens utilizadas pelos docentes.

Der Aufsatz bietet eine Revision der Ethnomethodologie, um ihren kritischen Gehalten einen positiven Status einzuräumen. Für diese Revision werden die basalen Maximen des „Doing Ethnomethodology” ausbuchstabiert. Die Maximen verrichten eine Analyse, die die unmittelbaren praktischen (Vollzugs- und Bezugs-) Probleme auf das Tun der Mitglieder als deren methodische Bearbeitung beziehen. Auf dieser Basis, eröffnet der Aufsatz ausgreifende, gleichsam praktisch orientierte Problem-Dimensionen: Durchsetzungsprobleme und existentielle Probleme. Dieser erweiterte Problemhaushalt leitet die Diskussion von fünf EM-Fallstudien hinsichtlich ihrer kritischen Potentiale an: zum soziologischen Erkenntnisapparat, Degradierungszeremonien, dem „doing gender“, Militäroperationen and politischer Diskursarbeit. Jede Behandlung gipfelt dabei in einer modifizierten Maxime, die es erlaubt, kritische Potentiale freizusetzen. Die kritische Ethnomethodologie (kEM), die auf diese Weise entwickelt wird, forciert eine differenzierte (nicht generelle), fundamentale (nicht oberflächliche) und zeitgenössische (nicht ritualisierte) Kritik. Sie fokussiert die bedingten Problembearbeitungskapazitäten von soziomateriellen Apparaten-im-Betrieb. Die Kapazitäten richten sich auf einen situierten Problemhaushalt, inklusive der drängenden existentiellen Probleme. Die vorgeschlagene kritische Analyse unterstellt nicht mehr Erfolgsbias, noch die funktionale Passung von praktischen Fragen und deren methodischer Beantwortung, von Problemen und Lösungen. KEM bezieht sich stattdessen auf die Notwendigkeiten, (Über-) Forderungen und greifbaren Möglichkeiten angesichts der zeitgenössischen Vielfachkrisen.

This article offers a revision of ethnomethodology (EM) in order to give its critical potential a positive status. For this revision, the basic maxims for “doing ethnomethodology” are spelled out. These maxims perform an analysis that links practical problems – carrying out a joint activity, working on matters at hand – to agents’ actions as their methodical responses to them. On this basis, the article introduces extended problem dimensions that agents are oriented toward: problems of enforcement and existential problems. This wider problem framework guides the discussion of five EM case studies – on sociological research, degradation ceremonies, doing gender, military operations, and political discourse work – in terms of their critical potential. Each discussion concludes with an amended maxim that enables it to realize its critical potential. The critical EM (CEM) developed in this way proposes a differentiated (not general), fundamental (not flat), and contemporary (not ritualistic) critique that focuses on the limited problem-managing capacities of socio-material apparatuses-at-work. These capacities are directed at all problem dimensions, including existential problems. The suggested critical analysis no longer presupposes a bias toward success and a functional fit of practical demands and methodical responses to them, of problems and solutions. CEM, rather, accounts for the imperatives, the, at times, excessive demands, and the concrete possibilities accruing to contemporary multiple crises.

Der vorliegende Text führt in die Schwerpunktausgabe "Harold Garfinkels 'Studies in Ethnomethodology'-ein Interviewprojekt" ein. In dieser sind acht Interviews mit Wissenschaftler*innen aus der Ethnomethodologie und benachbarten Disziplinen zum Buch "Studies in Ethnomethodology" (GARFINKEL 1967) und der Ethnomethodologie allgemein versammelt. Das Ziel der Interviews besteht darin, die Vielstimmigkeit dieses kontroversen, gleichsam wirkmächtigen Textes einzufangen und in einer anregend-instruktiven Art zu bündeln. In der Einleitung rekonstruieren wir kurz den Entstehungskontext des Buchs und stellen den Inhalt vor, führen in die Anlage des Interviewprojekts sowie in die Interviews selbst ein und skizzieren exemplarisch zwei Themenfelder-das Verhältnis von Ethnomethodologie und Konversationsanalyse sowie die Ethnomethodologie als Forschungshaltung-, die sich quer zu den einzelnen Interviews identifizieren ließen und mögliche Lektürewege andeuten.

Il volume presenta per la prima volta al pubblico italiano la teoria socio-logica radicale di John I. Kitsuse. Tra i primi fondatori della prospettiva della reazione sociale, Kitsuse propone una delle riflessioni più originali dell'etichettamento che guarda in particolare al controllo sociale come-modalità produttiva di definizioni e tipi sociali e principale forza di dif-ferenziazione di status. Per la prima volta disponibili in lingua italiana, i saggi compresi nel volume danno conto del vasto ventaglio di tematiche affrontate nell'intera produzione dell'autore. Dalla costruzione dei tipi "devianti" alle istituzioni educative come meccanismi selettivi, dall'analisi della costruzione dei problemi sociali allo studio delle procedure e delle attività organizzative che presiedono la produzione delle statistiche cri-minali, dalla trasformazione morale dello status dei detenuti alla mobili-tazione collettiva dei devianti e la contestazione dello stigma. Un volume imprescindibile per chi voglia comprendere quanto la realtà sociale sia dipendente dal modo in cui le istituzioni "producono" eventi, problemi e persone e ne influenzano costitutivamente il carattere morale.


John I. Kitsuse (1923-2003), tra i fondatori della prospettiva dell'eti-chettamento e figura di spicco della sociologia americana, ha insegnato nell'Università della California, sedi di Los Angeles e Santa Cruz.

Cirus Rinaldi insegna materie sociologiche presso il Dipartimento Culture e Società dell'Università di Palermo. Si occupa di teoria della devianza, con un particolare focus su interazionismo e costruzionismo (www.ciru-srinaldi.it).

In the following conversation Eric LAURIER talks about the role of ethnomethodology's foundational account-the "Studies in Ethnomethodology" (GARFINKEL, 1967)-within the UK and the influence of the book on his own research as well as on human geography, mobility studies, actor-network-theory, and a general social science methodology. He therefore underlines the peculiar focus of GARFINKEL on the everyday, his non-ironic position towards member's practices, and the plurivocality of the book. Giving an elaborated account on the methodological challenges with an ethnomethodological approach including video recordings he differentiates between the video as a research tool and video usage as a member's practice. LAURIER demonstrates the inspiring and initiating content of the studies as well as its limits. By doing so he can show the prolific quality for current research fields like the study of mobility and movement, the question of space and place, and the role of the "Studies in Ethnomethodology" as a political text.

The subject of this theoretical study, namely, the problem of knowing the other in social discourse, is of" course extensive and crucia! to every discipline and social science. My study does not try to present all the important or even the best materials on this subject. Instead, it tries to narrow as well as to penetrate one, minor contemporary, sociological theory of how we know another in social discourse. The assumption is that the more thoughtfu! we are in this respect the stronger our contribution will be to social inquiry.

Latour is widely considered a critic and renewer of research in the social sciences. The ecologically minded Left has also acclaimed him as a theorist interested in bringing nature back both into sociological theory and into society and politics. To enable a more detailed discussion of Latour’s claims, I will here outline his theory and the ways in which it is related to classical theory, such as Durkheim, and the methodology of the interpretive paradigm, such as Schu¨tz. My thesis is that
Latour’s empirical studies may be read as unfolding the methodological consequences of the interpretive paradigm, and that his early work is a brilliant proof of Durkheim’s theory of the morphology of social facts. Latour has now elaborated the insights he gained from concrete laboratory studies toward a general theory of the social, of society, and of politics. These generalizations have made his theory at least partly problematic. The political implication of Latour’s theory of society is a generalization of the call for equality to encompass everything; in other words, Latour criticizes the exclusion of nonhuman entities from political representation. The paper closes by discussing the political consequences of this proposal.

Michael LYNCH is widely known as one of the key figures of ethnomethodology. In this interview, he takes the discussion of GARFINKEL's "Studies in Ethnomethodology" (1967) as an opportunity to take the reader back to California in the 1970s as he shares his personal story of how he became acquainted with Harold GARFINKEL and ethnomethodology as a radical approach on the rise. LYNCH provides an account of ethnomethodology as a distinctive way of researching, writing, talking; which stands in high contrast to conventional social sciences and, which not only has been marginalized by the sociological mainstream at the time it came up, but may be seen as endangered nowadays. As he says in the interview, the tense relationship between ethnomethodology and conversation analysis as a robust field of inquiry can be traced back to this question as well. He reflects upon GARFINKELs central intellectual resources-namely phenomenology and the philosophy of WITTGENSTEIN-and shows how his own work embraces the relationships of ethnomethodology with science and technology studies and actor-network theory. Giving insights into how his work is driven by a confrontation of social theory and philosophy with empirical concreteness, LYNCH discusses concepts such as practice and knowledge which may be seen as in-between-phenomena within this confrontation. Finally, he suggests to continuously reread GARFINKEL's "Studies in Ethnomethodology" as the book provides a rich resource of ideas which especially become productive in light of own research.

Unexceptional by definition, the natural appearance of everyday life is not a matter of conscious awareness, let alone deliberate calculation, but an uneventful background against which, ordinarily, nothing special seems to happen. This feeling that nothing is going on, however, may be intentionally elicited (i.e., preserved) and used for instrumen­tal purposes, through strategic actions that dissemble themselves to better affect their target. In this view, this chapter elaborates the concept of concealed strategic actions (CSA), actions that are not experienced as such by the observer and are designed to be so. Somewhat oversuspicious, this idea can be traced back to the work of Goffman on fab­rications, normal appearances, and the difference between expressed versus transmitted information. CSA’s current relevance, more practically speaking, is shown by the exten­sive use in policy making of default options, which are interpreted here as a consequential form of interventions that do not feel as interventions at all. Though CSAs can back­ fire and are, indeed, inherently obsolescent, their ambition to deploy a reactance-proof strategy seems intriguing from an interactionist perspective, highlighting the nexus among intentions, actions, and reactions—something to eagerly inspect for an expansive symbolic interactionism.

National Health Service directives in the UK specify that, in any primary care consultation where a patient either demonstrably has – or is suspected to have –depression, a “direct question” should be asked regarding their thoughts or activities relating to self-harm or suicide. The evidence collected for this study, which takes the form of recorded interactions between doctors and patients in primary care settings, indicates that this is most commonly done post-diagnosis as an exercise in “risk assessment.” Suicidal ideation is, however, not only classified as a possible outcome of depression but also a core symptom of the condition and, consequently, such a question is sometimes asked prior to the diagnostic phase of the consultation, as a key step in reaching a depression diagnosis. This specific activity presents a general practitioner with an inferably difficult communicative task: how to raise the matter of suicide/self-harm when the patient does not already have a depression diagnosis as an interactional resource with which to make sense of its local relevance. Herein, using a conversation analytic method, techniques employed by general practitioners and patients in negotiating three of these potentially sensitive moments are examined. Analytic observations are then used to highlight a range of issues pertinent to the formulation of normative frames of “good practice” in handling difficult clinical topics in situ.

This study describes the differing overall structural organization of political radio phone-in interactions in Israel and the USA. The American phone-in is highly organized, tightly controlled by the host, who knows and introduces the caller at the opening, and closes the interaction unilaterally. In the Israeli phone-in, the opening resembles the mundane phone call: the call-taker acts as if he responds to a summons, there are greeting sequences, and the caller has the task of self-identification, since hosts do not know with whom they talk. Closings in Israel are negotiated and include pre-closings and closing sequences. Unlike the US structure, the Israeli structure promotes non-hierarchical institutional relations between participants, akin to mundane relations, often taken as relations between equals. The conclusion connects the overall structural organizations with the communication patterns in each society, suggesting phone-ins are one site that resonates and recreates societal norms.

O artigo realiza uma incursão seletiva ao terreno plural das microssociologias interpretativas, perfazendo uma análise crítica das contribuições à teoria social legadas pela sociologia fenomenológica de Alfred Schutz e pelo desdobramento desta na abordagem etnometodológica de Harold Garfinkel, com foco especial sobre o problema fundacional da relação entre a ação individual subjetivamente propelida, de um lado, e os contextos societários nos quais ela se desenrola, de outro. No jargão que se tornou hegemônico na teoria sociológica desde a emergência do “novo movimento teórico” (Alexander), o que pretendo fazer é discutir possibilidades e limites da sociologia fenomenológica no enfrentamento da questão do relacionamento entre agência e estrutura.