Sociology: Ethnomethodology|ICDS Supervisor Kerala PSC
In this post, the notes of Sociology are added which are important for ICDS Supervisor Exam. Kerala PSC and other states PSC's are conducting Exams for ICDS Supervisor. Study materials are available for other topics also like Home Science, Food and Nutrition, Psychology, Physiology, Microbiology, Sociology and Nutrition and Health for ICDS Supervisor Kerala PSC Exam
ICDS Supervisor Study Materials
Ethnomethodology
Harold Garfinkel first coined the term ethnomethodology which literally translates into the study of methods used by people.
It is concerned with methods people use to construct, account for and give meaning to their social world.
Ethnomethodology is not a methodology, but rather a study of methodology, because it does not have a formal methodology, but is the study of, "member's methods", the methods of others.
Ethnomethodologists believe that there is no real social order, as other sociological perspectives assume.
For them, social order is constructed in the minds of social actors as society confronts the individual as a series of sense impressions and experiences which she or he must somehow organize into a coherent pattern.
Social life appears orderly to members of society only because of members actively engage in making sense of their social world.
The point of ethnomethodology according to Zimmerman is to explain how the members of society go about the task of seeing, describing and explaining the order in the world in which they live in.
One of the key points of the theory is that ethnomethods or social facts are reflexively accountable.
Accounts are the ways members describe or explain specific situations.
For example, the explanation given by a husband for arriving home late at night is an account.
The ethnomethodologist is interested in both the account and the methods used to convey that account to the recipient, in this case, the wife.
Whether the account is factual or not does not interest the ethnomethodologist.
Grafinkel actually encourages his students to disrupt the social world in order to reveal the way that members make sense of it and reach understandings.
Ethnomethodology and mainstream sociology
Ethno methodologists are highly critical of mainstream sociology and argue that mainstream sociology typically portrays man as a ‘cultural dope’ who simply acts out the standardized directives provided by the culture of his society.
Critique of ethnomethodology
Alvin Gouldner pours scorn upon ethnomethodology for dealing with trivial aspects of social life and revealing things that everybody knows.
Critics have argued that ethnomethodologists appear to lack any motives and goals and fail to recognize that members accounting procedures are conducted within a system of sociological relationships involving differences of power.
Despite its criticism, Ethnomethodology has had an impact on linguistics and particularly on pragmatics.
Ethnomethodological studies of work have played a significant role in the field of human-computer interaction, informing design by providing engineers with descriptions of the practices of users.
Ethnomethodology has developed what is often considered a sub-field or perhaps an entirely new discipline, conversation analysis, which has its own chapter.
Symbolic Interactionism Symbolic interactionism is a major framework of sociological theory, that originated with two key theorists, George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley (looking Self Glass Theory).
It says that people act toward things based on the meaning those things have for them, and these meanings are derived from social interaction and modified through interpretation.
Like Weber, symbolic interactionists are concerned with explaining social actions in terms of the meanings that individuals give to them. However, they tend to focus on small scale interaction situations rather than large scale social change.
There are five central ideas to symbolic interactionism:
1. The human being must be understood as a social person
2. The human being must be understood as a thinking being
3. Humans do not sense their environment directly, instead, humans define the situation they are in
4. The cause of human action is the result of what is occurring in our present situation
5. Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment
Mead argued that humans interact in terms of symbols, the most important of which are contained in language.
For example, Thus, a symbol ‘chair’ not only represents a class of objects and defines them as similar, but it also indicates a line of action, but that is also – the action of sitting.
A chair can be used as a fuel or a weapon, but a large range of activities that can be associated with a chair is excluded by the course of action indicated by the symbol- chair.
This facilitates interaction. Without symbols, there would be no interaction and no human society.
Some fundamental aspects of our social experience and identities, like race and gender, having no biological bases at all, can be understood through the symbolic interactionist lens.
Both race and gender are social constructs that function based on what we believe to be true about people, given what they look like.
Thus, there are three basic premises of the perspective:
Act social interaction attach meanings interpretation modify and
act Symbolic interactionists describe thinking as an inner conversation that Mead called Minding.
Minding is the delay in one's thought process that happens when one thinks about what they will do next.
Through the process of role taking where the individual imaginatively puts himself in the shoes of the person he’s interacting with, he is able to understand his actions.
Mead differentiates between the concept of ‘Me’ and ‘I’. ‘Me’ is your definition of yourself in a specific social role and ‘I’ is a ‘self-concept’ build through interaction with others.
This provides the basis for interaction in society.
Mead accepted that society has a culture and that this culture suggests appropriate types of behavior for particular social roles.
People will tend to act in ways that are consistent both with the
expected behavior in a particular behavior and a person’s concept of self.
From Mead’s point of view, social institutions like family have an existence, in the sense that particular social roles are attached to them. Eg. Mother, brother, father, etc are social roles.
Methodology
Symbolic interactionist research uses qualitative research methods, like participant observation, to study aspects of
1) social interaction, and/or
2) individuals' selves.
Criticism
1. Interaction in a vacuum: Critics of this theory claim that symbolic interactionism neglects the macro-level of social interpretation—the “big picture.” They give little importance to the historical and social settings.
2. Constraints on the action: In stressing the freedom and flexibility of human action, interactionists tend to downplay the constraints on action.
Eg: In North Korea, social behavior is stringently regulated by the state and may stifle interaction in a natural manner
3. Source of meanings: Critics argue that interactionists fail to explain the source of meanings to which they attach so much importance to.
Meanings, according to them, are not spontaneously created but are a product of systematically generated social structure.
4. Additionally, some theorists have a problem with symbolic interaction theory due to its lack of testability
Also, Read;
This topic is important for the ICDS Supervisor Exam. Click HERE.
ICDS Supervisor Kerala PSC Home science Notes Here