Abstract
In this book Dirk vom Lehn provides a well-judged introduction to ethnomethodology (EM) and a fitting tribute to its late, great, progenitor Harold Garfinkel. I think it is important to talk about the book with its topics arranged in this order. If there were any concerns that biographical details and revelations about Garfinkel’s personal life might serve as a driving force for the discussion of the foundations and substance of EM’s programme, then these quickly abate. The early chapters deal with Garfinkel’s intellectual development; personal details introduced therein are interesting and relevant. There is a sense of the man, but not the sense that we need know the man (personally) in order to know the work. The biographical elements of the book are as much of EM as its inventor. The book is, as one would expect, very well researched. It succeeds in bringing together various works and writings of Garfinkel to tell the story of EM’s development from the ‘proto-ethnomethodological’ studies of jurors’ and coders’ practices (and the methods through and in which they come to know how to act like a group of jurors or coders in the first instance, for practical purposes), through to the latter directions and contributions of EM’s programme (in the development of sociological studies of science, for example) and the influence of EM in a number of fields of contemporary sociological inquiry. Amplifying the research required to produce a book such as this is a care and enthusiasm in the writing that will remind those working in the field why they were attracted to this ‘alternate, asymmetrical and incommensurate’ sociology in the first place.
With any book aiming to describe the development of a particular tradition, perhaps especially one considered a cumulative project, there will be divergences in accounts of intellectual development and lineage. It was interesting, for example, to read this book at the same time (or shortly thereafter) as Kenneth Liberman’s (2013) More Studies. Vom Lehn’s book is, of course, a different project entirely, but it is instructive to see how different influences, and different degrees of influence, can be suggested. Alfred Schutz and Aron Gurwitsch are key and familiar voices, in this book, with Durkheim’s aphorism (and its ‘working out’ in Garfinkel’s seminal studies) perhaps heard clearest of all. In addressing such claims, vom Lehn takes care to be nuanced whilst also providing something concrete enough for students to grasp, effectively accomplishing such questions as points of discussion rather than a resource for the drawing of defensive lines and disputes. A similar tone is adopted in the discussion of relations between formal analytic sociology and EM, reflecting something of the ways in which there has been a growing acknowledgement, if not quite a full reception, of EM since Garfinkel’s Studies (1967) was described by an early reviewer as a ‘disaster’. For novices, Robert Dingwall’s Foreword to the book is accurate in that those who have yet to engage in or are in the midst of their first round of grappling with Studies will be better equipped for Garfinkel’s original texts after reading this book. As Harvey Molotch (1994: 229) once wrote in characteristic style: ‘… we have to read a lot of stuff. It’s a zero-sum game out there. I greatly admire Harold Garfinkel, but he cost me’. I don’t want to promote the off-putting notion that the multi-clause sentences characteristic of Garfinkel’s work are simply impenetrable, but like many truly rewarding things in life, Garfinkel’s works are time-greedy. Here, in vom Lehn’s book, key terms and principles are explained in plain language and are, appropriately enough, driven through and shown in teaching exercises and examples from EM studies in various areas. And through this book, Dirk vom Lehn, offers a service to both EM and the many students and researchers with a curiosity about it. Reading this book won’t cut any corners for anyone with the aim of learning the lessons that EM still has for the doing of social science but, certainly, it should serve to further encourage those who may yet be interested in taking seriously just what it is that people do to bring Durkheim’s social facts and sociology’s fundamental phenomenon into being.