"Ethnomethodology: A Case of Co-production"
par JeanLouis Fabiani
Conference : The ambivalent relationships between European and American social
sciences
Ethnomethodology: A Case of Co-production
In spite of its claims, the history of social sciences cannot always be neatly distinguished
from the history of ideas, which tend to view the circulation of men and intellectual
properties as a fairly simple matter. Conceptualisations migrate from one space to another,
more often than not through individual actors and become dominant through
reappropriations or new uses, which then must be analysed, in a fresh context. Such a view
naturally entails some simplifications: theories become hand luggage and the study of
circulation forms gains precedence over diverse negotiations (in the inter-actionist sense)
giving way to the always provisional stabilization of conceptual constructs.
Misunderstandings and ambivalences fade from the picture. Obviously, sociological theories
are not mere commodities that can be analysed along lines of a customs protocol. Studies on
reception of ideas, for instance the introduction of Kant or Hegel in France, may supply us
with important factual data, such as the date and frequency of translations or the volume and
origins of commentaries, but these studies are tongue-tied when it comes to discussing
processes of reappropriation that develop under specific historical circumstances.
The study of cultural transfer has enriched the analysis of conceptual migrations by taking
into account different contexts and the concrete ways in which ideas are transmitted.
Historians have availed themselves of this contribution far more than have sociologists. The
aim of my presentation is twofold. First, I wish to clarify the process by which
ethnomethodology assumed such a typically American cast (or, more precisely, a 'West Coast'
cast) the putative reason for its decidedly limited popularity on the European continent.
Second, I should like to contribute to what Charles Camic and Neil Gross have usefully
labelled 'the new sociology of ideas' by sharing some fresh perspectives on the circulation of
conceptual constructs.
In order to explain the relatively hermetic nature of the world of ethnomethodology, one
often cites the peculiarities of its network structuration. Randall Collins accurately analysed
its character 'both dense and exclusive, organized on the basis of personal invitations to
strictly private meetings'. Explicit here is the underground dimension, which forms part of
the legend of ethnomethodology. Ethnomethodology was considered incompatible with
institutional sociology, although the reality is somewhat different. In France, the secretive,
incendiary or subversive dimension of this conceptual construct has been consistently
overrated, as a pretext for rejecting the entire enterprise as an expression of local
subcultures, or, among camp-followers, as a way of enhancing its clandestine, secret society
aura. Nobody can seriously deny that in France, and more generally in Europe, with the
possible exception of Great-Britain, ethnomethodology did not receive the attention it might
have — particularly in consideration of its hefty borrowings from European philosophy, a fact
that one imagines would have struck an intellectual chord with at least some theoretically
oriented sociologists. The fact that it failed to do so can be partly explained by the
simultaneous appearance, on both sides of the Atlantic, of the ethnomethodological school
and structuralist sociology respectively. Intellectual and institutional differences were why
the common reference to Durkheim in both Bourdieu’s and Garfinkel’s works went
unremarked. At stakes in both schools was an inventive reappropriation explicitly conceived
as a criticism of routinised uses of the French sociologist’s works. Structuralist sociology and
ethnomethodology were equally devoted the fight against functionalism, but they believed
they were fighting with different weapons. Structuralism sought to create, through
epistemological vigilance, the social conditions for a true social science. Ethnomethodology
sought to rehabilitate certain common-sense skills by asserting the existence of an
'indiscernibility principle' between resources mobilized by social science scholars and those
used in everyday interactions.
My presentation will first try to analyse the more or less explicit use of continental
philosophical and sociological theory in the first years of ethnomethodology’s development.
Second, it will examine the European conditions, which made acceptance of
ethnomethodological theory so problematic on the continent. Lastly, I will look at the effects
of successive intellectual appropriations from Europe on the American heart of the theory,
from its initial formulations through subsequent updating. Special attention will also be paid
to peculiar circumstances or critical events, such as Bruno Latour’s stay at the Salk Institute
in San Diego or to the various meetings by which disciples attempted to spread the gospel of
ethnomethodology in France. I shall thus attempt to elaborate a kind of joint-venture story
in my exposition of this singular chapter of intellectual history.
References
Copyright© ESSE:http://www.espacesse.org/en/art-
146.html
Next Articles : [Sociologie, sociographie, Perec, et
Passeron] [Sociologie et télévision, arrêt sur le mage
]
[La sociologie historique face à l'archéologie
du savoir [Le phénomène
Bergson] [Some Remarks about Cultural
Things/Legitimacy Theory and French Theatre ]
Return to First Paper : First Paper
Academic year 2008/2009
© a.r.e.a./Dr.Vicente Forés López
© Charlotte Fernandez
charfer@alumni.uv.es
Universitat de València Press