Prednosti i slabosti etnometodologije u zasnivanju naučnih zakona - protivrečnosti Garfinkelovog eksperimenta

Abstract

In this paper, the author sheds light on the importance of ethnomethodology as a "school" of thought, but also as a set of methodological procedures that have greatly improved the scientific research of social phenomena and their changes through historical movement. The advances in empirical research made by ethnomethodology are emphasized by authors from Irving Goffman to Garfingel and his famous experiment. The text highlights the advantages of ethnomethodological procedures in relation to the speculative tradition of European social and humanistic sciences, as well as some weaknesses that the author notices, such as the excessive insistence on the "universality" of the induction principle in analysing the "holy trinity" of social sciences, followed by the nature of social relations and their changes, of the status of the citizen, and the ideological-political structure of the state under whose auspices these changes take place. The author sees the main weakness of the entire ethnomethodology in the absolutization of indicators that stand out as a reliable criterion for demystifying the true nature of symbolic interaction in a social structure. In this sense, this paper sheds additional light on the superficial effects of Garfingel's experiment, which is focused on exposing the "vanity" of everyday behavioural patterns. The author does not dispute that the process of "dehumanization" of Western civilization is also manifested in the unravelling of Saussure's linguistic triangle - the sign, the signifier, and the signified. The author does not dispute the scientific and methodological effectiveness of Garfingel's experiment; he rather denies the generally binding nature of the conclusions of that experiment, the significance of which lies in the fact that it helped establish the view that interpersonal relations are devoid of empathy in the epistemic period of modernity. According to the author of this paper, Garfingel expressed one indicator from a wide empirical abundance, deliberately ignoring others that contradict it. Although he questions the universality of the results of ethnomethodological research on social phenomena, the author points out that ethnomethodology follows Durkheim's demand that "social phenomena should be viewed as things"