Self‐Reflective Rule‐Following

Abstract

This article is an investigation of the problem of how persons follow social rules. It begins by acknowledging the significance of the conception of rule‐following and its relation to social order that Harold Garfinkel has developed. It is argued that this conception is much more descriptive of social reality than the one associated with Garfinkel’s predecessor, Talcott Parsons. The study then goes on to depict how Alan Blum and Peter McHugh, while accepting Garfinkel’s empirical findings, point to a possible problem if all members do is what is expected of them (as would be consistent with Garfinkel’s ideas). It is suggested that recognizable examples of the behaviour in question will ensue, but not excellent examples of such behaviour. Using, as an example, dinner party behaviour, the article proceeds to explore what sort of orientation on the part of actors might actually encourage excellence.

Key words:

• Ethnomethodology
• Self‐Reflection
• Rules
• Excellence
• Sociability

Acknowledgements

This is a revised version of a paper delivered to the conference Ethnomethodology: A Critical Celebration at Essex University in April 2002. My thanks to those discussing the paper following the presentation.

Notes

1. For this argument, see, for example, Heritage (1984).

2. One major difference between the two works is that whereas in the earlier work rules were depicted as part of the structure, the later work differentiated structural and cultural systems and placed rules within the cultural realm. For the essay in which Parsons first announced his settled judgment on this issue, see Parsons (1954).

3. Of course other interpretations of this and his other demonstrations are possible and have been made. For three that do not seem to me to capture the significance of Garfinkel’s critique and even sometimes distort his actual findings, see Gouldner (1970: 390–95); Giddens (1984: 23) and Alexander (l987: 257–80).

4. See Garfinkel (1974: 15–18) for this account of how he developed the idea of ethnomethodology.

5. The references to ‘resourceful’ and ‘masterly’ are clearly Blum and McHugh’s way of acknowledging the complexities of the process of rule‐following that Garfinkel, but not Parsons, has made visible.

6. See Blum and McHugh (1984: 113–22). I am also drawing on their general depiction and critique of Garfinkel (see Blum and McHugh, 1984:72–88). It should be noted that my account of Blum and McHugh refers exclusively to this book. This is the portion of their work that, certainly in comparison with their earlier work (McHugh et al. , 1974) has attracted very little attention in the UK. The relation between this earlier work and Garfinkel’s original contribution has been well discussed by some ethnomethodologists (see Sharrock and Anderson, l986: 110–11; Pollner, 1991). For the relation between Blum and McHugh’s earlier work and the book that is my focus, see Bonner (2001).

7. Blum and McHugh (1984: 119–21).

8. That I use material from a novel as data represents a difference in method from the branch of ethnomethodology called conversational analysis which typically restricts itself to so‐called ‘naturally occurring conversations’. While this is not the place for a detailed methodological discussion, I would say that it is doubtful whether it is possible to sustain the argument that fiction, especially realist fiction, is exactly unnatural. Even if such an argument could be sustained, once one accepts, as many conversational analysts are reluctant to do, that all sociological analyses require interpretation as well as description, it seems futile to privilege one form of data over others. The various similarities and differences between the approach of Blum and McHugh and conversational analysis are explicitly discussed in an early paper called ‘Snubs’ (in McHugh et al., 1974: 109–36). . For the most well‐known example of conversational analysis, see Sacks (1992).

9. The issue of what might be involved in having such a communal orientation is, while of crucial importance, arguably only discussed in a preliminary way in Blum and McHugh (l984). It is worth noting that this issue is proving to be a matter of continuing interest in more recent works of both McHugh and Blum (see McHugh, 2005; Blum, 2003).