Meaning in Context: Notes towards a Critique of Ethnomethodology

A characteristic feature of much recent debate between ethnomethodologists and others has concerned respective claims to knowledge about the social world which has resulted in a certain mystification and confusion concerning fundamental issues which have important bearing on that social world as experienced. It is suggested that one aspect of such mystification has been the 'perspectives' controversy which has arisen between competing schools of sociological thought and which has resulted in widespread confusion amongst students and teachers concerning not only where the fundamental issues lie, but also, whether these issues warrant the significance sometimes attached to them. Ethnomethodology has emerged as an attempt to make 'problematic' the everyday taken for granted phenomena of the social world and to reintroduce sociology to those 'forgotten' aspects of everyday life.l These notes are no more than a brief outline of a possible critique of ethnomethodology written from the viewpoint of an implicit Marxian sociology. The paper relates to our own particular problems at the time of writing and is intended as no more than a statement of our exploratory attempts to understand the confusing relations between meaning in contexts, and more importantly, their 'political' significance within social processes which either grow out of those contexts or which shape them. We suggest, however, that because ethnomethodology neglects to take into consideration the character of certain events it borders close on being an ideology of conservatism (while at the same time adding another dimension to academic sociology which makes possible a further form of professionalism). While we agree with ethnomethodological critique of positivism and conventional research, certain reservation is expressed concerning those areas of ethnomethodological study which ignore such important social features as social change, the relations between meaningful contexts and political processes, and alternative realities to those features undKer 'anaylsis'. Furthermore, certain misgivings are advanced concerning the failure of ethnomethodology to make explicit critical comments concerning those features of interaction which may exercise oppressive influence on the meanings of members.