University of Gdansk
Discussion
Started 20th May, 2022
Ethnomethodology and Symbolic Interactionism
Although ethnomethodology presents some characteristics close to symbolic interactionism, it would be a misunderstanding to ignore the distinctions that separate both approaches. In this sense, what aspects of ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism can be compared and what differences can be drawn between them?
Most recent answer
I think the significant difference is that ethnomethodology appeals to the embodied experience of human beings and assumes that people cannot say much about the actual rules of their actions. Ethnomethodological explanations are often counterintuitive to humans and decidedly different from mundane reasoning. In symbolic interactionism, more important is what participants know and think about themselves, their partners, situations, and how they understand their actions. Researchers don't challenge their ways of understanding the world. They take seriously the knowledge of the participants in the situation as a source of their scientific knowledge.
All replies (7)
Armed Forces Medical College
Good Evening , Ethnomethodology focusses on the role of language and communication, while Symbolic interaction puts emphasis on action and interaction of individual in social interaction
1 Recommendation
Independent Researcher
Rooney Pinto Although they are both social action theories, they are completely different ideas.
Ethnomethodology is about the methods or ways that people construct, account for and give meaning to their social world, that is, documentary methods. They explain that language is indexical and interpretations of language are subjective.
Symbolic interactionism is about how people use symbols to create meaning. there are 3 main ideas:
1 action depends on meanings allocated to situations
2. things or situations have different meanings for different people
3. meanings can change
I gave a lesson on this very topic yesterday!!
1 Recommendation
University of Coimbra
Thank you very much for your answers. Your comments are always very welcome and help me in this reflection. These theories are not the same thing and, from a theoretical point of view, are different. However, from the point of view of the philosophical position, ethnomethodology is an emic approach with a subjective perception of reality. It comes close to the ontological relativism that we find in Symbolic Interactionism. But at what point does it differ? Or in what other aspects does it resemble?
Independent Researcher
Rooney Pinto Does this matter? It seems to me, with respect, that there are other more important issues to consider in sociology. these two theories are simply ideas put forward as explanation for various modes of behaviour. All sociological theories are subjective; all have some strengths and some weaknesses. We live in a highly complex world in which postmodernism accounts for many structures and behaviours. also. The only time that it appears to me to be relevant is if someone is using a theory to underpin a research project.
I hope these comments are helpful.
Portland State University
The term Symbolic Interactionism was developed by Hebert Blumer, a student of George Herbet Mead, who was a well-known pragmatist philosopher. As a pragmatist, Mead did not follow conventional philosophy of knowledge based on ontology and epistemology. Instead, he focused on action, as in his book, "The Act."
1 Recommendation
University of Coimbra
My research in the historiography of education focusing on the study of school memories from the period of the authoritarian regime in Portugal, named "Estado Novo" (Portuguese for New State). All comments are welcome and very helpful to my reflection. All the best, Rooney.
University of Gdansk
I think the significant difference is that ethnomethodology appeals to the embodied experience of human beings and assumes that people cannot say much about the actual rules of their actions. Ethnomethodological explanations are often counterintuitive to humans and decidedly different from mundane reasoning. In symbolic interactionism, more important is what participants know and think about themselves, their partners, situations, and how they understand their actions. Researchers don't challenge their ways of understanding the world. They take seriously the knowledge of the participants in the situation as a source of their scientific knowledge.
Similar questions and discussions
Related Publications
German STS research has paid little attention to the empirical and theoretical contributions of symbolic interactionism. Therefore, this article aims to give both an overall view of the development of theoretical concepts from E. C. Hughes and A.L. Strauss to the recent STS studies of, for example, S.L. Star and J. Fujimura and a short introduction...
