Conclusion
I have only begun to sketch out some of the differences between the work of Harold Garfinkel and Alfred Schutz. As the work of ethnomethodology accumulates and as other commentators begin to explore their similarities and differences, a clearer picture will, I am certain, emerge. For now, I shall only conclude with the following brief summary.
As Natanson (1966, p. 152) has noted, “for Schutz, mundane existence is structured by the typifications of man in the natural standpoint. Common sense is then an achievement rather than something simply given.” The main issues with which Schutz was concerned were how to investigate social reality and comprehend it (Natanson, 1966): …in terms which do not violate its character. How is warranted knowledge possible of the experiential world defined by the natural standpoint? The answer Schutz offers is by way of a reconstruction of the typifications of mundane life, but the underlying theme he is exploring is the intentional nature of consciousness in its abstractive and ideational modalities. Typification as such, rather than types and constructs, is the underlying concern. By tracing out the phenomenological genesis of typification from its prepredicative grounds to its self-conscious activity in generalization, he has provided an approach to an epistemology of the social world. [p. 154]
Garfinkel, on the other hand, seeks to trace out the genesis of the perception, interpretation, and accomplishment of social occasions and their settings by members of society as they live and operate within the natural attitude in the world of everyday life. Their activities are taken without question as whatever social reality is for them. The processes whereby they accomplish these activities so as to make them recognizable become his main concern and it is the discovery and reconstruction of these processes, under the ethnomethodological reduction, of which his findings consist. By describing the methods used by members, he provides an approach to the methodology of the social world, that is, an ethno or members' methodology, for the construction, interpretation, and recognition of the social world.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Coulter, J. Decontextualized meanings: current approaches toVerstehende investigations, In M. Truzzi, (Ed.).Verstehen: subjective understanding in the social sciences, Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1974.
Garfinkel, H.Studies in ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
Garfinkel, H. Discussion in R. Hill & K. Crittenden,Proceedings of the Purdue symposium on ethnomethodology, Institute for the Study of Social Change, Purdue University, 1968.
Garfinkel, H. Boston University lectures, Summer session in ethnomethodology and conversational analysis, 1975 (a).
Garfinkel, H.A Conjecture about an ignored orderliness of lectures as university specific work, unpublished mimeographed paper, May, 1975 (b).
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. On formal structures of practical actions, in J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian, (Eds.).Theoretical sociology, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970, 337–366.
Goffman, E.Behavior in public places, New York: The Free Press, 1963.
Goffman, E.Interaction ritual, Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
Gurwitsch, A.Studies in phenomenology and psychology, Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1966.
Natanson, M. The Phenomenology of Alfred Schutz,Inquiry, (Vol. 9). 1966, 147–155.
Pollner, M. Sociological and common sense models of the labelling process, in R. Turner (Ed.),Ethnomethodology, Baltimore, Md.: Penguin, 1974, 27–40.
Psathas, G. Ethnomethodology as a phenomenological approach in the social sciences, in D. Ihde & R. Zaner, (Eds.).Interdisciplinary phenomenology, The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1977, 73–98.
Sharrock, W. W. On owning knowledge, in R. Turner (Ed.)Ethnomethodology, Baltimore, MD.: Penguin, 1974, 45–53.
Sudnow, D.The ways of the hand, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Wilson, N.The practice of knowledge: An analytic perspective on the work of Harold Garfinkel, Paper presented at American Sociological Association meetings, 1975.
Wilson, N.An interpretation of the work of Harold Garfinkel: A developmental, epistemological and speculative inquiry, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1979.
Zaner, R., Solitude and sociality, in G. Psathas (Ed.).Phenomenological sociology, New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1973.
Zimmerman, D. Ethnomethodology,The American sociologist, (Vol. 13). 1978, 6–14.
Zimmerman, D., & Pollner, M. The everyday world as phenomenon., in J. D. Douglas (Ed.).Understanding everyday life, Chicago: Aldine, 1970, 80–104.
Zimmerman, D., & Wieder, D. L. Ethnomethodology and the problem of order: Comment on Denzin, in J. D. Douglas (Ed.).Understanding everyday life, Chicago, Aldine, 1970, 285–298.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Presented to the Sheffield Conference—“Theorising Language and the Life World” sponsored by the British Society for Phenomenology. An earlier version of this paper has been published in German in R. Grathoff and W. Sprondel (eds)Alfred Schutz und die Idee des Alltags fur die Sozial wissenschaften, Enke Verlag, Stuttgart, 1976. I am grateful to D. Laurence Wieder, Jeff Coulter and Neil Wilson for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Psathas, G. Approaches to the study of the world of everyday life. Hum Stud 3, 3–17 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02331797
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02331797