Garfinkel’s Rendering Theorem and Two Sociologies

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Sociologies and Garfinkel’s Rendering Theorem
Using an illustration
Lived-work setting
Garfinkel’s theorem and the sociologies
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

Sociology is a study of humans’ social behavior and/or the rules that bind or separate people into social groups. This kind of study helps sociologists to understand the different social structures and logic of people’s behaviors. These human social behaviors are then grouped into social orders that define the different groups in which people are categorized. Social orders had for long been kept silent but, scientists like Garfinkel helped to elaborate the importance of these orders in understanding the logic of behavior of a society.

Social order is a concept used in sociology, history and other social sciences to describe all facets of society such as social structures, social institutions and practices which remain continually stable over time. Social order has some of its conditions that remain constant over time and these patterns are reproducible since they are necessary for its survival (Hechter and Horne, 2003). Sociologies of human interactions are therefore seen to differ, from ones that need professional insight to be understood to those that do not need professional analysis to be understood. These two sociologies are known as hidden social orders and evident social orders. However, the sociologies have differed on various levels especially according to such terms as interpretation, methods, structure, logic, action, and description theory.

The Sociologies and Garfinkel’s Rendering Theorem

According to many ethnomethodologists, sociologies of evident social orders seem to examine the society members’ interactions to produce sustainable orderliness in their observable actions. These evident social orders according to Garfinkel are important since they help to provide a basis for understanding the practices of the society to be studied. Sociologies of evident social orders are more often thought to be orderly compared to the hidden social orders (Hechter and Horne, 2003). This is because the people involved in this evident social order seem to coordinate to make the order flow in a logical manner. On the contrary, scientists argue that the real orderliness of social action is underlying and hidden from the visible behaviors of society.

In the sociology of hidden social orders, sociologists use disciplined practices to uncover and document the hidden order of the society through a practice termed as ‘research methods’. These methods are standards on which sociologists base their work for it to be qualified as professionally adequate (Garfinkel, 2002). According to Hechter and Horne (2003), hidden orders are said to underlie the visible actions of members of the society but the actions that the ordinary members of the society see are the visual appearances of the real society. The sociology of hidden social orders, however, has to be analyzed for one to know its logic and social structure since its works are hidden from society’s visible actions.

Due to the need that had arisen to give ethnomethodology students direction on how to define the relations between ethnomethodological relations and literature, Garfinkels’ contributed to this by introducing various methods to be used. Some of these methods included among them; the first rendering theorem, the embodied reflexivity of instructed actions, a comparison of classical properties of instructed actions with phenomenal field properties of instructed actions and the second rendering theorem.

Using an illustration

As an academic authority in the sociology field, Garfinkel describes a kind of theorem the social scientists use to study these social structures. He termed it the ‘rendering theory’; this is a practice by social scientists in which they tend to transform social practices into analytical samples thereby providing theories and constructed versions of the real social world. According to Garfinkel (2002), the originality of the studied phenomena as it was first produced by interacting parties is however lost from view as it is analyzed. In this transformation process by the social scientists, the orderliness of the original state is disrupted with an intention to create a new order according to the variables allocated and studied so as to come up with an analysis. He further indicates this process using the illustration below.

[ ] → ( )

In this illustration, [ ] represents all social practices, these activities are carried out exactly according to their required purpose. Then → represents the procedures carried out by the social scientists for the purpose of their study to define the subject’s practices. Then ( ) stands for the outcome of the study finding of the scientists that describes the society in question (Garfinkel, 2002). A study conducted by Grafinkels introduced another concept known as ethnomethodology, this concept however was theoretically more based on his previously stated rendering theorem (Bryant and Peck 2006). According to this concept unlike others used before by social scientists, focuses on the orderliness of action as their emergent property; they tend to redefine the centerpiece of social order (Garfinkel, 2002). This concept originated from an analysis of a tape recording of jury deliberations by Fred Strodbeck in 1954, in which Edward Shil was among the committee that hired him to analyze. This is when Garfinkels’ concept of ethnomethodology helped to analyze Shils’ complaints (Garfinkel, 1967).

His studies defined the task of the ‘ethnomethodology’ as the ‘recovering phenomena’, this is because of the fact that he viewed the social scientists as having lost the touch required to make social analysis. According to his explanation, the orderliness of social action is not underlying the visible actions but evident by the mere action of the society involved. Ethnomethodology realization then was seen to pose a challenge to the prevailing concepts of social sciences since it asserts critical analysis of the original actions. This is because according to Garfinkel, most social scientists are seen to be trained to regard original actions as having no necessary interest but only a source of reference. Although, Garfinkel’s reference to Ethnomethodology as an alternate does not intend to offer an alternative theory of social life but focuses on the fundamentals of social science by putting all factors into consideration.

Lived-work setting

Social activities have always been a common practice in many places, though examples of safe activities are more welcome by society and people seem to interact more amidst themselves. These activities however at some time may seem to trigger mixed reactions from different people especially when there is a sense of danger involved no matter how minimal it may seem to appear. Some of the harm may be unintended but when they happen they may elicit unexpected reactions. Activities like ball throwing, baseball and disc catching among others in public places attract attention though they attract anxiety in people (Francis and Stephen, 2004).

For instance, two or more people playing while hitting a ball or throwing discs in the air across the playing field are always watched interestingly by the people passing nearby or even seated since the ball is always in motion. The people passing do not expect any harm but always anticipate unwarranted danger from the flying object thus they might try to keep as much distance from the ball as possible. The individuals playing with the ball on the other hand are also keen on the people passing and seated near them and take great care not to let the ball out of their catch or within the range of causing harm to the passersby. These different groups of people may seem to show certain behaviors towards this same situation but in different manners (Bryant and Peck, 2006).

Maynard and Schaeffer (2000) believe that some of the actions may be seen by the naked eyes but some cannot be seen no matter how much one tries to look. These underlying behaviors are triggered mostly by the thoughts of the people involved in reciprocation to the anticipated events. For example, the people throwing the ball may tend to throw the ball in different directions away from where people are passing; may seem to move away from the crowd; others might try to avoid dangers by throwing the ball a bit lighter than they should; others by shouting when the ball is overhead and many other things. The passersby on the other hand will try to avoid this by keeping their distance, changing the course of direction away from the ball or even being always watchful for the ball.

Some of these evident behaviors are sometimes easy to analyze but the hidden behaviors, the reason why some things are done by people are the ones that are necessary to understand. In this example for instance; understanding why one chooses to do the particular activity in a park and not on the pavements, why one tends to react in a certain way when near something, why one decides to do something the way they do e.g. throw the ball lightly and not hard as usual, and why someone reacts towards an unexpected occurrence like being hit by the ball. Some of these reactions sometimes can be seen to attract rude confrontations despite any lengthy excuse given or care taken to avoid them.

Therefore, sociologies try to study these interactions to make comprehensive logic as to why people may choose to do some things either knowingly or unknowingly. Understanding these facts can help in the integration of the interactions between different parties, reason and action. Most studies show that sometimes reactions are due to pre-exposure to some situation or anticipation. However, conditions/factors sometimes differ and one’s assumption may not necessarily be to the point when making an analysis of an event unless he/she understands the relationship between the activities and the intentions underlying the activities (Bryant and Peck, 2006).

Garfinkel’s theorem and the sociologies

According to Garfinkels’ rendering theorem, the study of such kinds of social behavior can help one better understand the underlying factors of certain responses; for example, studying the normal behavior of people in this situation and studying their response then linking them to the reasons of these responses. This can be done by creating a hypothetical problem to disrupt the original setting for instance by introducing a perceived danger of harm from the ball and studying the responses of the people in accordance to their behavior towards these perceived situations in different scenarios. However, the original factors should be kept in mind and constantly maintained in both the original setting and the analyzed one.

Conclusion

In conclusion Francis and Stephen (2004) are of the opinion that this kind of sociological study then gives an insight just like the various studies that Garfinkel did to get the response from people involved in his experiments. In his studies he indicated that using approaches like ethnomethodology, it was necessary that one focused on accountability of members by ensuring their experiences maintain the social order to which they are accountable. Garfinkel (1967) he in his insisted thorough analyses had to be made and that humans should not be treated as ‘judgmental dopes’. In the study gives a clear cut structure entailing the rules that govern the studies by acknowledging the fact that no matter how big the outcome maybe, studied subjects should not be conditioned. He advocates for the realization that social relationships exist and are subject to procedures and methods of reasoning and they should not be assumed to be non-existent. Therefore in studying a social relation like the one illustrated above, one should be keen enough not to miss out on the pointers and not to condition the participants to elicit a certain reaction since it will result in misdirection on the outcome.

Reference

Bryant, C and Peck. D. (2006) Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. (eds.) The Handbook of the 21st Century Sociology. Thousands Oaks: Sage, p. 8-16, 437-438, 444-445.

Francis, D. and Stephen H. (2004) An Invitation to Ethnomethodology: Language, Society and Interaction. London: Sage.

Garfinkel, H. (1963) “A conception of, and experiments with, Trust as a condition for Concerted Stable Actions.” New York: Ronald Press, 187-238

Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.

Garfinkel, H. (2002) Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 135-137.

Hechter, M. and Horne, C. (2003) Theories of Social Order. A Reader‎. Stanford University Press.

Maynard, D. W. and Schaeffer. N.C. (2000) “Toward Sociology of Social Scientific Knowledge: Survey Research and Ethnomethodology’s Asymmetric Alternates.” Social Studies ofScience.

Click Here To Order Now!