著者

ニシオ ハリー・K 竹中 和郎

出版者

日本社会学会

雑誌

社会学評論 (ISSN:00215414)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.20, no.1, pp.73-90,131, 1969-07-30 (Released:2010-05-07)

参考文献数

36

---

The social sciences, sociology in particular, have aimed to develop an empirically-verifiable body of theory through application of the structural-functional analysis of social action in general. Functional sociologists, whether they be the Grand Theorists or Middle-range Theorists, have therefore concerned themselves with “objective” and “scientific” investigation of phenomena, rejecting metaphysical as well as positivistic interpretations of social reality. While the voluntaristic theory of social action caught the imagination of sociologists articulating the theoretical position of sociology vis-a-vis social idealism, radical utilitarianism and Social Darwinism, a new, though somewhat “off-beat” sociological approach has begun to appear, challenging the theoretical foundation of systematic sociology in general. Ethnomethodology is one of such challenges posed upon against the Orthodox Sociology.Ethnomethodology finds its origin in the work of Alfred Schutz, an Austrian sociologist who wrote a three-volume work titled Collective Papers, in which most of his ideas are contained. His “subjective” approach to social action, tied with his interest in phenomenology, appealed to social scientists in New York and California. Included in this group of ethnomethodologists are Harold Garfinkel, Aron Cicourel, Peter Mcllugh, Marvin Scott and many young sociologists.What these sociologists aim to accomplish may be summarized in the following : 1) in the process of scientific enquiries, a priority should be given to the subjective aspect of social interaction based on mutual understanding and on the accepted “rules of the game”, 2) instead of developing generalized rules arbitarity constructed by scientists, ethnomethodologists, by taking the position of social actors, attempt to understand not only the expressed symbolic interaction but also more subtle, unstated, unpredictable definitions of situations, 3) the ethnomethodologists treat the acting individuals not merely as “actors” but as “theorists” capable of defining the situation, impressing others in ways they desire and to some extent manipulating the given social structure to their advantage, and 4) in this type of observation, it is indispensable for the observer to react with those whom he analyses so as to enable him to identify the processes by which new shared knowledge and group experiences emerge and become sanctioned. In ethnomethodology, however, emphasis is upon culturally unstated social facts, rather than those formally institutionalized or stated. Because of this interest, ethnomethodologists tend to preoccupy themselves with many unusual, off-beat topics such as homosexuality, the social system of gamblers, social interaction in horse racing, etc. They are convinced that orthodox sociology is able to deal with only a very small portion of social reality which appears above the surface while a gigantic mass of unstated social interaction remaining beneath totally untouched. With this approach, E. Goff man attempts to analyse the communication processes which are primarily being “give-off” by the social performers. He uses a dramaturgical approach and cynically examines social interaction in terms of the performance that takes place in front or back of the curtain in relation to the audience. Aron Cicourel, articulating the theory of Harold Garfinkel, attempts to develop the theory-methodology of Ethnomethodology in his recent work by pointing out the theoretical, methodological shortcomings of the conventional survey methods.Ethnomethodology is still theoretically ambiguous and methodologically unclear to many. For one thing, where should we draw a line between ethnomethodology and social interactionist approach?