Comment on James Coleman's Review of Harold Garfinkel's "Studies in Ethnomethodology"

Author(s): Marvin Israel

Source: The American Sociologist, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Nov., 1969), pp. 335-336
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27701551
Accessed: 02-03-2015 19:33 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American
Sociologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.232.212.14 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 19:33:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

tion." American
Becker,

R.

Bierstedt,
1963

Everett

Geer,

L.

1961

of Sociology

Journal

289-298.
Howard
S., Blanche

61

(January)

C. Hughes,

Strauss
in White:
Student Culture
Boys
of Chicago
Chicago:
University

and Anselm

in Medical
Press.

School.

and
40-55
in
education."
"Sociology
general
Pp.
and Contemporary
Charles H. Page
(ed.), Sociology
Education.
New York: Random
House.
R. N.
Broadus,
"A citation study for sociology." American
1967
Sociologist
:19-20.
2 (February)
E.
Clark, Kenneth
1957
A Survey
of a Growing
America's
Psychologists:
Profession.
American
D.C:
Washington,
Psycholog
ical Association.
Cole, S., and J. R. Cole
a study in the
1967
"Scientific
and recognition:
output
operation of the reward system in science." American
32
Review
(June) :377-390.
Sociological
Crane, D.
a study
at major
1965
"Scientists
and minor universities:
of productivity
and recognition."
American
ical Review
30 (October)
:699-714.

Gottlieb, D.
1961

Warren
The

Hagstrom,
1965

in

of
socialization
Social Forces
40

"Process
schools."

0.
Scientific

Community.

Sociolog

American
graduate
:124-131.

(December)
New

York:

Basic

Books.

B.
Keeley,
1964

J.

of reading
in so
lists for graduate
students
and Social
Research
18 (July):
ciology."
Sociology
449-453.
Lin, N., and C. E. Nelson
1969
in core sociological
reference patterns
"Bibliographic
"Use

1965-1966."
journals,
ruary) :47-50.

American

Sociologist

(Feb

R. K.
Merton,
1957
"Priorities

a chapter
in the
in scientific discovery:
of science." American
Review
sociology
Sociological
22 (December)
:635-659.
1967
"On
the history
and
of sociological
systematics
in Robert
On The
1-38
K. Merton,
theory." Pp.
oretical Sociology:
Five Essays,
Old and New. New
York:
Free Press of Glencoe.
Robert K., George G. Reader,
and Patricia
L. Kendall
Merton,
1957

The

Student Physician.
Mass.:
Harvard
Cambridge,
University Press.
Odum, Howard W.
in the
1951
American
The Story of Sociology
Sociology:
United
States
through 1950. New York:
Longmans,
Green.
Oromaner, M. J.
an analysis
of intro
cited sociologists:
1968
"The most
text citations."
3
American
ductory
Sociologist
(May): 124^-126.
Storer, Norman W.
1966
The
Social
of
System
and Winston.
Rinehart

Science.

New

York:

Holt,

LETTERS
COMMENT ON JAMES COLEMAN'S REVIEW OF
HAROLD GARFINKEL'S STUDIES IN
ETHNOMETHODOLOGY
one who

As
be

given

that new

is concerned

I am

fair hearing,

by James

American

symposium,"

field

Coleman's

in Ethnomethodology

review of Harold Garfinkel's Studies

("Review

in our

approaches

dismayed

Review,

Sociological

Feb

ruary 1968).
It is not the relentless
me

so much

the author,

as
who

that troubles
of the review
hostility
the serious
to respect
of
its failure
purpose
issues
in
is struggling
with basic
theoretical

stature
I find it puzzling
of Coleman's
that a man
sociology.
the import of what
should have so consistently
failed to grasp
in
he goes over Studies
he was
by chapter
reading.
Chapter
Ethnomethodology,

and

chapter

by

he

chapter

report

of Garfinkel's
succeeded

that he was
specialists
be surgically
provided

the Managed
is a
Person,"

and
5, "Passing
in an 'Intersexed'
a male
interviews
with
in convincing
really a woman
with

the

history

indeed,
conceive

an

both
and,

transvestite?

him

and medical

therefore,

should

artificial

vagina.
her methods

of passing
situation
and
In describing
Agnes's
a point about
of
the nature
as a woman,
is making
Garfinkel
an analysis
of common-sense
with
social
begins
reality. He

status:
of normal
that the world
sexual
concerning
or females, not of persons
is made
up of either males
persons
char
and feminine
of masculine
who may
vary in their mix
at birth by an
sex is discovered
that a person's
acteristics,
beliefs

a person's
"real"
that once
of the genitalia,
and
inspection
once and
for all.
sex is determined,
determined
it has been
of a penis and a seven
the possession
Since Agnes,
despite

as a
as a male,
is successfully
passing
to be married,
Garfinkel
is engaged
suggests:
not as an objective
realm
of the social world

of facts which can be apprehended

simply by looking at

ac
of members'
as consisting
of products
them, but instead
are not "seen"
but are first interpreted
tions. These
products
normal
of the "natural,
and then seen. That
is, let us conceive
as the end product
of mem
series
of a methodical
woman"
as achieving
the as
bers'
talk and behavior
and of Agnes

are
activities
"female."
production
Agnes's
as being
that is,
of a female;
those
by others
But then this must
is a woman.
that Agnes
"see"
our
are all continually
of all of us. We
achieving

status

cribed

interpreted
can
anyone
true

be

sexual

every
indeed,
taken-for-granted
assembled
is continually
being
it is those practices
and
methodical
practices,
of sociological
be the subject matter
inquiry.
social

status,
world

of the
aspect
by members'
which

should

was
to con
this chapter
step in evaluating
transexuals
and
in hermaphrodites
specialist
His
for being
taken in by Agnes.
and to attack Garfinkel
very
sex confirms Garfinkel's
concern with Agnes's
"real"
descrip
He
then faults Gar
view of sex.
tion of the common-sense
first

Coleman's

point entirely.
For
Chapter
example,
of Sex Status
Achievement
Agnes?who

misses

teen-year
woman,
Let us

sult

a medical

for a study of
of Agnes
the case
finkel for not having
used
as
if this were merely
processes,
decision-making
hospital
to con
It is hard
an abortive
in medical
sociology.
study
This
is like
to this piece.
reaction
ceive of a more
perverse
criticizing
occupations
italism.

Weber
in The

of
a study of the sociology
doing
and
the Spirit
Ethic
Protestant
of Cap

for not

goes on to reject Garfinkel's

[anthropomor
"
in favor
of 'society'
hand
of the "powerful
phic invocation]
sex status
of
a
of
the
of
functional
polarization
explanation
to fulfill
a female
needs
it: "A male
in society. As he puts
in everyday
interests
and to act as a spouse
his sexual
life;
Coleman

then

335

November, 1969

This content downloaded from 169.232.212.14 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 19:33:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

female

What
sex
want

a male

needs

be more

could
acts,
to

and

males

and

for granted

take

the

same

Yes,
females

but

for

(p.

purposes"
it is precisely
which
Garfinkel

obvious?

as

to study as methodically
see
we
that Garfinkel
Thus,
set of sociological
problems.
but

sembled
social
products.
new
up a whole
opening
In Chapter
3 Garfinkel

Garfinkel's

128).

spouses,
does not
is

discusses

the documentary
method
of interpretation.
This
to the fact that in assigning
refers
to others'
of so
both
members
meaning
actions,
ordinary
as "docu
treat the observable
actions
ciety and sociologists
ments
of" some underlying
of which
pattern
they are ex

Not
do we
of the
discover
the nature
only
at the overt behavior,
but we
pattern
underlying
by looking
also discover
the meaning
of the overt behavior
it
by seeing
as the expression
of an underlying
This means
that
pattern.
both the "documents"
are continually
and the pattern
being

pressions.

For

reinterpreted.

someone

when

example,

some

does

things, we might

doubt

discussion

of

this

is no

that

(one
phenomenon
or
has ever done

to anyone
who
out
that
ad

familiar

supervised
are
an

considerations
hoc
to follow rules, no matter
attempt
are formulated.
what are we
Hence,

points
coding)
irremediable
feature

of an

how

those rules
precisely
to make
of sociology's
solution

to the problem
of social order,
to in
from members'
conformity
resulting
that govern their behavior with one another?
out
the book, Garfinkel
points
throughout

order

supposedly
norms
ternalized

and again
Again
the elliptical
of
character
Norms
governed
by norms.
seemingly
to think
without
how
on

you

of

the

statement

cannot
a

As

behavior.
simple
the norms
that

are
persons
even what
is

that

generate

try
thought
experiment,
of a street
the crossing

govern
car. You

see that, no matter

will
hit by a
to fall back
have
the rules, you will
always
to add
and
the phrase
knows"
have
everyone

getting
refine

"what

"etcetera."

out

Garfinkel

points
they discover

often

that

act and
people
which
they were

to see these things as point

begin
like: He's
fun of me,
pattern
underlying
making
He's
to work
toward a satisfactory
crazy. As we begin
expla
nation
of the behavior,
we
use
to find the
the behavior

only

and
the overt behavior
explanation
simultaneously
explain
with the explanation
we are in the process
of finding.
Garfinkel's
discussion
to
other
is, among
things, pertinent
the theoretical
and methodological
of the relation
problem
a concept
and an indicator
ship between
or, more
generally,

is only a sample
of the
The
essentially
problematic.
foregoing
fundamental
for the sociological
perspective
implications
that are to be found throughout
ironic it is
this book. How

"strange"
ing to an

the

warrant

sociologist's
means.
behavior

for deciding
what
says that everyone

Coleman

use

the documentary
method
what?
explanations?so
Again
use

gists

he misses
common-sense

in developing

the point,
methods

observed
that we

knows

and

descriptions

the

that sociolo
point
being
in doing documentary
inter
that it is precisely
their "com

never realizing
while
pretation
mon
sense" which
is in itself an
is because
This
it is by that very
knows"
everyone
social
order out

some

important
"common

of study.
or "what

object
sense"

is how do we know when we are dealing

here
ing problem
a doctor,
with
and how do we decide
are dealing
that we
with the "same"
These
the sociolo
person?
questions
require
use
the methods
he and members
to
gist to make
explicit
"see"
This
furnishes
him with a theoretic
under
something.
of what
he
is studying
and not just a taken-for
standing

were

sociologists
Garfinkel's

great pity
to deprive

to
approach
consists
of drawing

talent

trivial

ently
most

materials
A

sociological
problems.
from the most humble

observations
empirical
nature
for our field. This

radical

instance

of this review,
if, on the basis
of the excitement
themselves
of

of

in

the

history

had

profound
will
example

of

science

Garfinkel's
and

implications
not be
would

where

seemingly

appar
of the
the

first

trivial

implications.
suffice. In Chapter

final
Is Ethno
1, "What
does not even mention),
(a chapter Coleman
methodology?"
Garfinkel
with coding. He
found that
reports his experiences
tests, students
although,
by conventional
reliability
coding
case
in a psychiatric
records
a high
clinic were
achieving
of reliability,
to code only by not fol
able
degree
they were
lowing
various
was

the coding
strictly
ad hoc considerations
and

instructions

and by introducing
into the coding procedure.
This
un
the contents
of the case
records were

so even when

ambiguous

the

coding

rules

were

acting.
It can

that Coleman
in the

ested

the

rule

apparently

adequate.

under

is not satisfied with

be seen that Garfinkel
easily
that are
short cuts that take for granted matters

theoretical

then

do

can

discipline

should

intellectual
ill

seems

never
say, "Garfinkel
. . ." In my
theoretical

questions.
to dismiss
afford

inter
our

opinion,

perspectives
established
precon
simply because
they do not fit in with
to look at things. Coleman
of ways
his re
closes
ceptions
view with
statement:
". . . there is an extraor
the following
high ratio
the banality

dinarily
so that

reading."
Perhaps
information
transfer

of reading
time to information
is not directly
upon
apparent
of the
be reminded
he should
is a product

of two

things:

transfer,
a casual
fact

that
and

Sender

receiver.

create
a
of society
isolated
bits of non

that ordinary
members
are essentially
of what

identical
no
observables.
For
two "doctors"
are
example,
the same?for
no one "doctor"
that matter,
is really
really
the same on each occasion
of our meeting
him ; yet we usually
no difficulty
have
in deciding
or not
whether
the person
with whom we are interacting
is in fact a doctor. An interest

label.
granted
It would
be

then

Israel

Marvin

Dickinson College
Carlisle,

Pennsylvania

KINSHIP CONTEXTS AND SOME HUMAN

UNIVERSALS, PAST AND FUTURE:
A SET OF HYPOTHESES
some

For
tions

listed

far, but
somehow
important
1. The
received

time now
below.

I have

seems

with the proposi

playing
come
to have
of it so

they are
general
extremely
I feel they must
fit together
for our field. The
propositions
overwhelming
their initial

in family contexts
considerations

of all

majority
placement

family contexts.
2. Prior
to the development
of all
texts, the vast majority
time

been

Nothing

and

and

considerations,
in some way

and
quite

are:
human

beings

rearing

have
in

experience

con
of relatively
modernized
of their
individuals
spent more
of their behavior
oriented more

to family
3. The

than in or to any other context.

curve
of the learning
for all
indi
steepest
part
is to be found in the first three to five years of life.
viduals
4. Despite
variations
in preferences
for family
contexts,

the actual
little throughout
has varied
family context
quite
as a function
of the greatest
variations
of dif
history. One
num
ferent preferences
has been
in the average
the variation
ber of members
per family unit, but that has not varied
by
more
than a factor of 75 per cent until the advent
of mod
ern medical
With
modern
medical
technology.
technology,
in excess

variations
ations

in

the

of 75 per cent never long

of generations
number

continue.

average

336

The

This content downloaded from 169.232.212.14 on Mon, 02 Mar 2015 19:33:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

American

Vari

represented,
Sociologist