HAROLD GARFINKEL – A common sense sociologist
Harold Garfinkel (October 29, 1917 – April 21, 2011) was an American sociologist and ethnomethodologist, who taught at the University of California, Los Angeles.)
Imagine a young boy growing up in the bustling streets of Newark, New Jersey, in the 1920s—a city alive with immigrants, stories, and the complexities of everyday life. This boy, curious and observant, didn’t just see people; he noticed their actions, routines, and the silent rules that held their interactions together. That boy was Harold Garfinkel, who would later challenge the way we understand human behavior by founding ethnomethodology—a groundbreaking approach in sociology.
Born on October 29, 1917, Harold Garfinkel was the son of Jewish immigrants who ran a small clothing business. His early life was deeply influenced by the cultural diversity of Newark, where he witnessed how people from different backgrounds adapted to each other’s social norms. These observations planted the seeds of his lifelong fascination with the “hidden” methods people use to make sense of their everyday interactions.
Despite his humble beginnings, Garfinkel excelled academically. After graduating high school, he pursued a degree in business administration at the University of Newark. However, it was during his military service in World War II that his intellectual journey took a decisive turn. Assigned to study the morale of soldiers, Garfinkel encountered the works of Alfred Schutz, whose phenomenological approach to social science inspired him to dig deeper into how people construct their social realities.
Theoretical Contributions of Harold Garfinkel: A Systematic Overview
Harold Garfinkel (1917–2011), the founder of ethnomethodology, revolutionized sociology by focusing on the methods people use to construct and make sense of social reality. Below is a detailed exploration of his key terms, ideas, their development timeline, references to his works, and the influence of other sociologists.
1. Ethnomethodology
Key Idea:
Ethnomethodology studies the everyday methods and practices people use to produce and sustain a shared sense of social order. It examines the tacit, taken-for-granted rules of interaction.
Key Terms: Harold Garfinkel
Indexicality : The context-dependent nature of meaning in communication.
Reflexivity: The process by which individuals produce and interpret social actions while being aware of the methods used.
Accountability: The way people make their actions understandable to others.
Garfinkel developed ethnomethodology in the 1950s and 1960s as a response to the dominant structural functionalism and positivism in sociology.
Reference:
His seminal book, “Studies in Ethnomethodology” (1967), is the foundational text.
Influences:
Alfred Schutz: Schutz’s phenomenology, especially his focus on the subjective experience of social actors, deeply influenced Garfinkel.
Talcott Parsons: Although Garfinkel was Parsons’ student at Harvard, he critiqued Parsons’ structural-functionalism for ignoring the microlevel processes of social interaction.
2. Breaching Experiments
Breaching experiments involve intentionally breaking social norms to reveal the implicit rules governing social behavior.
Examples:
1. Asking strangers for their seat on a bus without providing a reason.
2. Acting as a guest in one’s own home.
Purpose:
These experiments expose the fragile, negotiated nature of social order.
Development Timeline:
Conducted in the early 1960s as part of Garfinkel’s exploration of ethnomethodology.
Reference:
Documented in “Studies in Ethnomethodology” (1967).
3. Indexical Expressions and Context
Language and meaning are inherently context-dependent (indexical), requiring shared understanding to interpret.
Key Terms:
Indexicality: Words and phrases derive meaning from the situation in which they are used.
Situated Action: Actions are always embedded in specific social contexts.
Development Timeline:
This concept emerged in the 1950s and was solidified in the 1967 book.
Reference:
Discussed extensively in “Studies in Ethnomethodology” (1967).
Influences:
Ludwig Wittgenstein: His philosophy of language and the idea of meaning as use influenced Garfinkel’s focus on language in interaction.
- The Documentary Method of Interpretation
Key Idea:
People interpret actions and events by relating them to an assumed background context.
Application:
This method explains how individuals produce coherence in their interactions by treating specific events as evidence of larger patterns.
Development Timeline:
Developed in the 1950s and elaborated in Garfinkel’s 1967 book.
Reference:
“Studies in Ethnomethodology” (1967).
Influences:
Alfred Schutz: Schutz’s phenomenology provided the foundation for understanding how actors construct social reality.
5. Conversation Analysis
Key Idea:
Inspired by Garfinkel’s work, conversation analysis focuses on the sequential organization of talk in interaction.
Key Terms:
- Turn-taking: The rules governing who speaks and when in a conversation.
- Repair: Mechanisms used to resolve communication breakdowns.
Development Timeline:
Developed in collaboration with Harvey Sacks, a student of Garfinkel, in the 1960s.
Reference:
While not directly documented by Garfinkel, Sacks’ lectures and works were heavily influenced by Garfinkel’s ethnomethodological principles.
6. Critique of Sociological Positivism
Key Idea:
Garfinkel critiqued positivist sociology for treating social facts as external and objective, ignoring the everyday practices that construct these facts.
Reference:
“Studies in Ethnomethodology” (1967).
Influences:
Emile Durkheim: While Garfinkel was inspired by Durkheim’s emphasis on social facts, he redefined them as accomplishments of practical action.
Below are some indirect classifications or thematic structures that can be derived from his work:
1. Classifications within Ethnomethodology
Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology can be seen as organized around the following major areas or classifications:
- a) Methods of Social Interaction
How people use shared rules and methods to produce and maintain social order.
Example: Everyday greetings, queuing, and conversational turn-taking.
Key Concepts:
Indexicality
Reflexivity
Accountability
- b) Breaching and Rulebreaking
The study of what happens when societal norms are violated.
Purpose: To expose the implicit rules people rely on for social order.
Example: Breaching experiments like behaving as a “stranger” in one’s home.
- c) Contextual Interpretation (Indexicality)
The role of context in shaping the meaning of words, actions, and interactions.
Key Idea: Meanings are not fixed; they depend on the situation.
- d) Practical Sociology
Focus on the practical reasoning people use in their daily lives to make sense of the world.
Key Idea: People are competent social actors who actively construct their reality.
2. Interactional Orders and Accountability
Garfinkel’s theories classify interactions based on their accountable nature, which means all actions can be made explainable and understandable within a social context. This accountability falls into:
Formal Accountability: Actions governed by institutional or explicit rules (e.g., law, bureaucracy).
Informal Accountability: Everyday, routine behaviors governed by tacit norms.
3. Classification of Social Phenomena (Implied in Breaching Experiments)
Through his breaching experiments, Garfinkel implicitly classified social phenomena into:
Taken-for-granted Practices: Social norms we unconsciously follow (e.g., waiting your turn in line).
Disruptions and Breaches: Moments that reveal these norms when violated.
4. Documentary Method of Interpretation
Garfinkel categorized how people interpret events using the documentary method, which involves two implicit classifications:
Foreground Evidence: Specific events or actions that are visible and observable.
Background Assumptions: The implicit context or framework people use to interpret foreground evidence.
Breaching Experiments: A Key Concept by Harold Garfinkel
Breaching experiments are one of Harold Garfinkel’s most famous contributions to sociology, introduced as part of his ethnomethodology. These experiments involve intentionally breaking or “breaching” the social norms and rules people take for granted in everyday life. By observing how people react to such disruptions, Garfinkel revealed the implicit, unspoken methods individuals use to maintain social order.
Purpose of Breaching Experiments
Expose Social Norms: Social norms are often invisible because they are so deeply ingrained. Breaching experiments make these norms visible by disrupting them.
Reveal Social Order: These experiments demonstrate how fragile social order is and how much effort people invest in maintaining it.
Accountability: They show how people hold themselves and others accountable for following the “rules” of interaction.
Indexicality and Reflexivity: Breaching experiments highlight the context-dependent (indexical) and self-referential (reflexive) nature of social interactions.
Examples of Breaching Experiments
Garfinkel conducted several breaching experiments, many of which were described in his seminal book, “Studies in Ethnomethodology” (1967). Below are some classic examples:
- Acting as a Stranger at Home
Experiment: A person treats their family as if they were strangers—greeting them formally, asking permission for routine activities, and behaving as a guest.
Outcome: Family members often become confused, annoyed, or upset, highlighting how much family interactions rely on implicit norms.
- Disrupting Conversations
Experiment: In a casual conversation, participants repeatedly ask for clarification of common terms (e.g., “What do you mean by ‘fine’?”).
Outcome: This behavior frustrates the other person and disrupts the flow of the conversation, showing how much people rely on shared understandings.
- Breaking Queues
Experiment: A person cuts in line without explanation or acknowledgment.
Outcome: This breach often results in anger or confrontation, revealing the implicit rule that people must wait their turn.
Key Findings from Breaching Experiments
Social Order is Fragile: When norms are breached, people quickly experience discomfort, confusion, or even anger, demonstrating how much social interaction depends on tacit agreements.
Repair Mechanisms: People actively try to “repair” breaches by questioning the behavior, rationalizing it, or enforcing the norm (e.g., telling someone to wait their turn).- Accountability: Breaching experiments show how individuals hold themselves and others accountable for maintaining social norms.
- Unspoken Rules: Most of what governs interaction is unspoken and taken for granted until it is disrupted.
Implications of Breaching Experiments
Practical Sociology: These experiments provided insights into how people create and sustain the “facts” of everyday life.- Critique of MacroSociology: Breaching experiments highlighted the limitations of macro sociological theories (e.g., functionalism), which often ignored the microlevel processes that produce social order.
- Applications: Breaching experiments have influenced fields such as conversational analysis, organizational studies, and even modern psychology.
Challenges and Criticisms
Ethical Concerns: Breaching experiments can cause emotional distress or confusion in participants, raising questions about informed consent.
2. Overemphasis on Disruption: Critics argue that focusing on breaches might ignore the stability of social norms in most interactions.
3. Interpretive Challenges: Observers may interpret the results differently, as reactions to breaches are highly context dependent.
———————————–
Breaching experiments are a powerful tool for understanding the invisible rules that shape social life. By intentionally disrupting these rules, Garfinkel revealed the everyday methods people use to construct and sustain social reality. While controversial, these experiments remain a cornerstone of ethnomethodology and continue to inspire research across disciplines.
Ethnomethodology in Practice: RealLife Applications in Europe and India
Ethnomethodology, pioneered by Harold Garfinkel, focuses on uncovering the everyday methods people use to make sense of their social world. One of its key approaches is breaching experiments, where social norms are deliberately disrupted to expose how fragile and essential they are. This article explores two real life applications of ethnomethodology—one from Europe and another from India—demonstrating how this sociological approach has influenced societal understanding and problem solving.
Understanding Ethnomethodology Through Breaching Experiments
What are Breaching Experiments?
Harold Garfinkel introduced breaching experiments as a method to study the unspoken rules governing everyday life. These experiments involve intentionally breaking social norms to observe how people react and attempt to restore order.
Purpose of Breaching Experiments
Expose Social Norms: Making invisible social norms visible by disrupting them.
2. Highlight Social Order: Demonstrating the fragile balance of everyday interactions.
3. Accountability: Revealing how individuals hold themselves and others accountable for maintaining norms.
4. Context and Reflexivity: Emphasizing the context-dependent and reflexive nature of human interactions.
RealLife Event from Indian Politics showcasing breaching experiment : Tearing of the Ordinance by Rahul Gandhi (2013)
Context:
In 2013, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, approved an ordinance that aimed to protect convicted lawmakers from being immediately disqualified. The ordinance was heavily criticized by the public and opposition parties for being undemocratic.
The Breach:
Rahul Gandhi, then the Vice President of the Indian National Congress (the ruling party), publicly criticized the ordinance during a press conference, calling it “nonsense” and saying it should be “torn up and thrown away.” He even symbolically tore a copy of the ordinance in front of the media. This act was a breach of the expected norms of internal party discipline and the usual decorum of addressing disagreements behind closed doors.
Reactions:
1. Within the Party:
Senior leaders, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, were reportedly embarrassed as this public criticism undermined the Cabinet’s authority.
It exposed rifts within the party and disrupted the norm of collective responsibility.
- In Public and Media:
The act was both praised and criticized. Some saw it as a bold move to align with public sentiment, while others saw it as a breach of political protocol.
Analysis as a Breach:
Unwritten Norm Broken: In Indian politics, leaders from the ruling party typically avoid publicly criticizing their own government’s decisions.
Social Order Disruption: The breach created confusion about the Congress party’s stance on the ordinance and exposed internal divisions.
Repair Mechanisms: The government eventually withdrew the ordinance, signaling a form of repair to the disrupted political process.
Sociological Insight:
This event highlighted the fragility of institutional norms within political parties and demonstrated how breaches can expose underlying tensions. It also underscored the power of public accountability in reshaping political actions.
RealLife Application in Europe: Traffic Flow Experiments in the Netherlands
Context: Redesigning Traffic Systems
Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman applied ethnomethodological principles in redesigning urban traffic systems. Traditional traffic controls, such as signs and signals, were removed in certain areas, creating shared spaces where drivers and pedestrians had to rely on mutual understanding.
Ethnomethodological Principle Applied
Monderman trusted that individuals would use practical reasoning to navigate shared spaces. This approach emphasized reflexivity, where drivers and pedestrians would adjust their behavior based on situational cues and interactions rather than rigid rules.
Outcomes
1. Improved Safety: Fewer accidents were reported as people became more cautious and attentive.
2. Cooperation and Trust: Drivers and pedestrians communicated nonverbally, fostering cooperation.
3. Validation of Ethnomethodology: The success of the experiment demonstrated how unspoken norms and reflexive actions govern behavior in ambiguous situations.
Real Life Application in India: Polio Eradication Campaign
Context: Addressing Resistance to Vaccination
During India’s efforts to eradicate polio, resistance from certain communities posed a significant challenge. Ethnomethodological principles were employed to understand the practical reasoning behind vaccine hesitancy.
Ethnomethodological Approach
1. Observation and Engagement: Field workers observed and engaged with resistant communities to understand their cultural practices and beliefs.
2. Understanding Everyday Reasoning: Researchers analyzed how local norms and fears shaped decisions about healthcare.
Outcomes
1. Tailored Communication: Public health messages were customized to address specific fears, such as involving trusted local leaders in awareness campaigns.
2. Cultural Sensitivity: Campaigns were designed to respect local languages and traditions, building trust.
3. Eradication of Polio: India was declared poliofree by the WHO in 2014, a milestone achieved through understanding and addressing everyday reasoning.
Broader Implications of Ethnomethodology
- Practical Sociology: Ethnomethodology offers a unique lens for solving societal issues by focusing on the microlevel interactions that shape behavior.
2. Revealing Fragility of Social Norms: Both the Netherlands and India examples show how deeply ingrained norms can be disrupted or leveraged for positive change.
3. Application Across Fields: From urban planning to public health, ethnomethodological principles have broad applicability in designing effective interventions.
Books and publications by Harold Garfinkel
Harold Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology, authored several significant works in sociology. Here is a list of his books:
Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967)
This is Garfinkel’s most famous work and the foundational text for ethnomethodology. It introduces key concepts like breaching experiments, accountability, and reflexivity.- Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism (2002)
This book expands on ethnomethodology as a program, emphasizing how social facts are treated as accomplishments in everyday life.
- Seeing Sociologically: The Routine Grounds of Social Action (2006)
A posthumous publication of Garfinkel’s early PhD work, focusing on the routine and practical reasoning behind social interactions.
- Toward a Sociological Theory of Information (2008)
In this text, Garfinkel explores the sociological aspects of information, communication, and their connection to social order.
Perspectives of various sociologists on Garfinkel and his theories, along with their critiques-
Harold Garfinkel’s theories and ethnomethodology have been influential in sociology, yet they have also faced criticism. Below is an overview of the perspectives of various sociologists on Garfinkel and his theories, along with their critiques.
- Erving Goffman
Goffman shared Garfinkel’s interest in the microlevel study of social interactions. He acknowledged Garfinkel’s emphasis on everyday practices and the ways people maintain social order through routines.
Goffman’s work on dramaturgy and the presentation of self overlaps with ethnomethodology in analyzing facetoface interactions.
Critique:
Goffman criticized Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology for being too focused on methodological disruptions (like breaching experiments) rather than the stability of everyday life.
He argued that Garfinkel often overlooked the importance of cultural norms and institutional frameworks in shaping individual behavior.
- Anthony Giddens
Giddens admired Garfinkel’s exploration of the micro foundations of social order. Ethnomethodology influenced Giddens’ structuration theory, especially in linking individual actions to larger structures.
Giddens appreciated the reflexivity and contextuality in Garfinkel’s work.
Critique:
Giddens criticized Garfinkel for being overly focused on micro level interactions and neglecting the macro-level structures like power, institutions, and historical context.
He argued that Garfinkel’s theories lack a systematic framework to connect everyday practices to broader social systems.
- Pierre Bourdieu
Bourdieu shared Garfinkel’s concern with how social practices produce and reproduce social order.
However, Bourdieu emphasized habitus (internalized social structures) and field (the broader social context) as central to understanding social behavior, which Garfinkel largely ignored.
Critique:
Bourdieu critiqued ethnomethodology for being overly descriptive. He argued that it focuses too much on micro-interactions without addressing how these interactions are shaped by historical and structural forces.
He also viewed ethnomethodology as lacking a critical perspective, as it doesn’t address issues like power and inequality.
- Jürgen Habermas
Habermas acknowledged the value of Garfinkel’s work in showing how social order emerges from everyday interactions.
He appreciated Garfinkel’s focus on communication and accountability in maintaining social norms.
Critique:
Habermas criticized Garfinkel for ignoring the normative dimensions of society, such as values, ethics, and broader societal goals.
He argued that ethnomethodology is overly focused on procedural aspects of social interaction, neglecting the ideal speech situations that are essential for understanding communication and consensus.
- Randall Collins
Collins drew on ethnomethodology to develop his interaction ritual theory, which highlights the importance of micro-interactions in producing social cohesion.
He appreciated Garfinkel’s emphasis on rituals and practical reasoning in everyday life.
Critique:
Collins criticized Garfinkel’s breaching experiments for being artificial and unrepresentative of reallife situations.
He argued that Garfinkel’s focus on disruption ignores the routine stability of social interactions.
- Harold Garfinkel’s Students and Followers
Many of Garfinkel’s students expanded on his work but also critiqued aspects of ethnomethodology:
Harvey Sacks:
Sacks developed conversation analysis out of ethnomethodology but argued that Garfinkel’s approach was too broad and needed more precision.
Emanuel Schegloff:
Schegloff emphasized the need for empirical rigor in studying conversations, criticizing Garfinkel for being overly focused on theoretical abstractions.
Critiques from Students:
Some of his students found ethnomethodology too focused on mundane interactions, arguing that it lacks the capacity to address larger societal issues like class, race, and gender inequality.
- Sociological Critics (General)
Several sociologists have raised broader critiques of Garfinkel’s theories:
Overemphasis on MicroLevel:
Many sociologists, including structural functionalists, criticized ethnomethodology for ignoring macrolevel structures like institutions, systems, and historical processes.
Critics argue that focusing solely on local, context-specific practices limits the theory’s explanatory power.
Lack of Normative Analysis:
Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology avoids engaging with normative or moral questions, which some see as a major limitation in addressing societal challenges.
Ethical Issues in Breaching Experiments:
Breaching experiments, one of Garfinkel’s hallmark methods, have been criticized for lacking ethical considerations. These experiments often caused confusion or discomfort for participants without their informed consent.
Overemphasis on Everydayness:
Critics argue that Garfinkel’s obsession with the minutiae of everyday life risks ignoring broader patterns, trends, and structures that shape society.
Descriptive, Not Explanatory:
Ethnomethodology has been described as a descriptive approach that lacks the capacity to explain why certain social norms and practices exist.
While Harold Garfinkel and ethnomethodology have had a profound impact on sociology, they have faced substantial criticism for their limited scope and methodological focus. Critics like Goffman, Giddens, and Bourdieu have highlighted the lack of attention to macrostructures, power dynamics, and normative questions in Garfinkel’s work. Despite this, ethnomethodology’s emphasis on microlevel interactions and the implicit methods of social order remains a cornerstone of sociological inquiry.
Multiple choice questions (MCQs) on Harold Garfinkel and his theories, based on past year questions (PYQs) for UGC NET and other exams:
- Who is the founder of Ethnomethodology.
a) Max Weber
b) Emile Durkheim
c) Harold Garfinkel
d) Auguste Comte
Answer: c) Harold Garfinkel
2. Breaching experiments were introduced by:
a) Erving Goffman
b) Harold Garfinkel
c) George Herbert Mead
d) Jürgen Habermas
Answer: b) Harold Garfinkel
- In Ethnomethodology, what is the primary focus?
a) Macro social structures
b) Collective consciousness
c) Everyday methods people use to create social order
d) The history of social institutions
Answer: c) Everyday methods people use to create social order
- Harold Garfinkel’s Breaching Experiments aim to:
a) Establish new social norms
b) Disrupt the takenforgranted social norms
c) Study the impact of historical events on society
d) Examine global social systems
Answer: b) Disrupt the takenforgranted social norms
5. Ethnomethodology challenges the dominance of which of the following perspectives?
a) Structural functionalism
b) Symbolic interactionism
c) Conflict theory
d) Rational choice theory
Answer: a) Structural functionalism
6. Which of the following is a key concept introduced by Harold Garfinkel?
a) Functional prerequisites
b) Social facts
c) Indexicality
d) Alienation
Answer: c) Indexicality
7. In Ethnomethodology, the term reflexivity refers to:
a) How individuals reflect on their own actions
b) How people’s actions are influenced by history
c) The process by which social norms are constantly challenged
d) The selfconscious awareness of one’s social role
Answer: a) How individuals reflect on their own actions
8. Garfinkel’s work in Ethnomethodology is most closely associated with:
a) Sociological positivism
b) The study of largescale social structures
c) The analysis of everyday social practices
d) Marxist theory of class conflict
Answer: c) The analysis of everyday social practices
9. Which of the following is an example of a breaching experiment conducted by Garfinkel?
a) Asking strangers about their personal history
b) Violating traffic laws to study drivers’ reactions
c) Asking family members to act like strangers
d) Engaging in a public debate on social issues
Answer: c) Asking family members to act like strangers
10. What does ethnomethodology emphasize about social order?
a) It is imposed externally by institutions
b) It is created through everyday practices and interactions
c) It is biologically determined
d) It is an outcome of economic structures
Answer: b) It is created through everyday practices and interactions
11. Who is considered the founder of ethnomethodology?
a) Erving Goffman
b) Max Weber
c) Herbert Blumer
d) Harold Garfinkel
Answer: d) Harold Garfinkel
12. Which of the following terms was not used by Garfinkel to explain the sense of order?
a) Glossing
b) Indexicality
c) Reflexivity
d) Discourse analysis
Answer: d) Discourse analysis
13. In which book did Harold Garfinkel introduce the concept of “breaching experiments”?
a) “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life”
b) “Studies in Ethnomethodology”
c) “Mind, Self, and Society”
d) “The Sociological Imagination”
Answer: b) “Studies in Ethnomethodology”
14. Which sociologist developed the approach known as dramaturgical analysis?
a) Harold Garfinkel
b) Erving Goffman
c) Max Weber
d) Herbert Blumer
Answer: b) Erving Goffman
15 According to ethnomethodologists, social actors use ____________ to accomplish their everyday lives.
a) Formal logic
b) Practical reasoning
c) Empirical research
d) Conscious processes
Answer: b) Practical reasoning
16. Which of the following is the term that ethnomethodologists use to describe the ways in which social actors explain specific situations?
a) Accounts
b) Hermeneutics
c) Emotions
d) Rituals
Answer: a) Accounts
17. Harold Garfinkel conducted experiments in which students were asked to:
a) Violate traffic laws
b) Breach social norms
c) Engage in roleplaying
d) Participate in group discussions
Answer: b) Breach social norms
18. Which of the following is NOT a working principle of conversation analysis?
a) Nonverbal behaviors are inconsequential to accomplishing a conversation.
b) The fundamental framework of a conversation is its sequential organization.
c) The collection and analysis of detailed data is critical to studying a conversation fully.
d) Conversations are managed on a turnbyturn basis.
Answer: a) Nonverbal behaviors are inconsequential to accomplishing a conversation.
19. Which of the following is the most common type of rhetorical device used to generate applause?
a) Pursuit
b) Position taking
c) Contrast
d) List
Answer: c) Contrast
20. According to conversation analysts, which of the following is typically true of disagreements?
a) They are resolved immediately.
b) They are avoided at all costs.
c) They are managed through turntaking and repair mechanisms.
d) They lead to the end of the conversation.
Answer: c) They are managed through turntaking and repair mechanisms.
21`. Which of the following is NOT a concept associated with Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology?
a) Indexicality
b) Reflexivity
c) Social facts
d) Practical reasoning
Answer: c) Social facts
22. In Garfinkel’s breaching experiments, participants were instructed to:
a) Engage in normal social interactions
b) Violate social norms to observe reactions
c) Observe social interactions without participating
d) Analyze social structures
Answer: b) Violate social norms to observe reactions
23. Which of the following is a key focus of ethnomethodology?
a) The study of largescale social structures
b) The analysis of everyday social interactions
c) The examination of economic systems
d) The exploration of political ideologies
Answer: b) The analysis of everyday social interactions
24. Harold Garfinkel’s work primarily challenges which sociological perspective?
a) Structural functionalism
b) Conflict theory
c) Symbolic interactionism
d) Feminist theory
Answer: a) Structural functionalism
25. Which of the following is NOT a term used by Garfinkel to explain the sense of order?
a) Glossing
b) Indexicality
c) Reflexivity
d) Discourse analysis
Answer: d) Discourse analysis
26. In Garfinkel’s view, social order is:
a) Imposed by external authorities
b) Maintained through shared understandings and practices
c) Determined by economic factors
d) A result of political power dynamics
Answer: b) Maintained through shared understandings and practices
