Weekly Research (7): Ethnomethodology

Alright, my blog attempts have thus far been atrocious - today I attempt to mend this, and perhaps go back at a later date and rewrite my past post/s so that I may apply certain teachings in my everyday life. I will start this week's topic with a series of Haiku's, feel free to contribute.

Here, a Haiku for
Ethnomethodology
Did you enjoy it?

It is a big word
Ethnomethodology
takes up syllables

A blog about eth-
-nomethodology is
as follows below.

So, what is ethnomethodology? Breaking it down we have ethno meaning people and methodology meaning well, methods. So, in essence enthnomethodology is just the study of social order and how it's produced via everyday happenings, and widely held that meaning is produced inside the interaction, rather than an external force (I argue that the only external force making us do things is death, but that's an entirely different topic). Some main points of it are as follows*:

• Documentary method of interpretation
• Recipe Knowledge
• Breaching (as discovered surreptitiously by Garfinkel)

So what I've come to learn this week is that humans have a habit of attributing reason (this is hardly news because when humans start to realise there isn't a reason for anything - they usually become a mite suicidal), even incomprehensible behaviour will often yield a "You're an idiot!" or "You're insane!" and these exclamations fall under the same heading of attributing reason, because in order for their behaviour to make sense they would have to be a) an idiot or b) insane. Even seemingly 'senseless' acts can later be reflected on, walking away from a situation thinking "I don't know" will later be revisited and perhaps discussed - even if it's beyond your knowledge, you're likely to believe there's still a reason.

But to be honest, my favourite point for this week is breaching, because ethnomethodologist Harold Garfinkel is the silliest thing ever and I enjoy his antics. He essentially created researchability by messing with people's heads, which is admirable. And I'll attempt to express this in a comprehensible manner. Alright, so, in one of Garfinkel's better known experiments the 'Convsersation Clarification Experiment' he directed his experimenter's to engage in a conversation and insist commonplace statements given by the subject, be clarified - when in everyday interaction such a statement would need no such clarification.

I give the following example of Garfinkel's Conversation Clarification Experiment:
  
"Subject: How are you?
Experimenter: How am I in regards to what? My health, my finance, my school work, my peace of mind...
Subject: (red in the face and suddenly out of control) Look! I was just trying to be polite! Frankly, I don't give a damn how you are!" (pg80)

The experimenter's breaches resulted in such a rapid and complete interactional breakdown that even Garfinkel himself was stunned by the result. Essentially, at the end of the day, Garfinkel found that no matter how many nonsensical situations were produced, people will continue to make sense out of it and if no explanation can be given, people would more often than not respond with hostility and if not, would attempt to work within the known framework of the situation, by reasoning their behaviour.

Just today I had my head messed with by the people doing their presentations, one basically walked off and sat down to chat with another student amongst us. Having missed the point (that apparently some had gotten from the beginning), I immediately looked to the teacher for some indication that this behaviour was permitted because this behaviour didn't fit into what I believed to be appropriate, that I sought to redefine my knowledge of what a presentation is and the unspoken rules of conduct that was expected.

What I also find interesting is the aspect of morality in exchanges, for example a breach is considered to be a breach of trust and broken trust is the result of an active deviation from the norm. If no explanation is given for the behaviour which is considered 'abnormal' or if the 'framework' is breached then you can be met by righteous hostility. And I've experienced it myself on many occassion, now I finally have a word which fully encompasses my reaction to my boyfriend's need to be extremely literal, or say 'good morning' irregardless of the time of day.

References:
Reading: Heritage, John. 1984. “The Morality of Cognition.” Pp. 75-102 in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Disclaimer: Thank you, Connie and Robert for Haiku aid. 

*added to at a later date. The blog is getting a little long, wouldn't you say?