Ethnomethodology and symbolic interaction perspectives differ in their approach Essay

Ethno modeology and exemplary fundamental interaction perspectives differ in their approach. Explain how these perspectives differEthno systemology and Symbolic interaction atomic number 18 both sub-categories in the complaisant theory of interaction. fundamental interactionism reducees on the details of throngs everyday lives and how people use symbolism to communicate plainly similarly to maintain our character and the impression others have of us as case-by-cases.both perspectives study similar parts of hearty interaction and tone of voice at behavioral and companionable averages in modern society. However they differ slightly in both their approach to analyzing amicable norms but also have different perspectives on the basis of modern affectionate norms.Symoblic interaction studies and theorises the way in which individuals in society act towards each other based on the subject matter that they have for different actions and processes. The meaning we attach to certain actions is the product of the individuals previous complaisant interaction and at that placefore the individual continues to hired manle and modify their own interpretation during all their social encounters. One of the founding theorists of the emblematic interaction was Herbert Blumer and he suggested that we attach meaning to the actions of other individuals and therefore we do non precisely respond to the actions of the individual but also to the meaning we attach to that action. in that locationfore people behave and react, in social interaction, because of what they study and not by what is taking place at the time. Thus the construction of society is based on human interpretation of social action and therefore social bonds atomic number 18 only exploited by means of two individuals interpretation of deportment.The theory and meaning of Ethno regularityology can be formed by breaking rarify the word into its component parts. Ethno meaning people, method m eaning method and ology meaning the study of makes Ethnomethodology the study of the method of people. A better definition of the theory is the study of society in everyday life and the abstract of the use of knowledge, actions and interpretations in social situation. Ethnomethodlogists argon interested in understanding how an individual makes sense of the social world and islinked to phenomenology. Harold Garfinkel furyed the use of language and communication as way of analysing the way people make sense of their environment.This focus on language and communications gives us one of the key differences in the approach of both theories. Whilst Ethnomethodology puts emphasis on the touchence of language and communication, symbolic interaction puts greater emphasis on actions and interpretations of the individual in social interaction.The nature of meaning of social interaction is fundamental in both symbolic interaction and ethnomethodology. The definition of meaning and how it us ed and analysed is considerably different between the two perspectives. In symbolic interaction meaning is the interpretation given by the actor to the setting they are in therefore the meaning is the product of the individuals social interactions but is interpreted on during the interaction. Blumer says meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters1. Despite ethnomethodologists agreeing with symbolic interactionists that meaning is formed in social interaction they differ in the particular that they insist that meanings only exist in certain circumstances and that developing and changing through differing forms of social interaction.This difference in the interpretation of meaning results in different views on certain types of research method and what data is used and the validity of that data. In ethnomethodology the focus is put on the social interaction or communication, they are studying, wh ilst it takes place and therefore video recording, live observation and audio recordings are used as the key methods of research and analysis. However in symbolic interaction there is much more focus put on field notes and post social interaction recollections such as interviews and group discussions which in the field of symbolic interaction is valid enough to gain the point of view of the actor. This is in austere furrow to ethnomethodology who recall that the actors point of view is irrelevant in sociological study. There is much criticism of the symbolic interactionist method as there is no set structure in their methodsand they rely heavily upon the actor to give his or her point of view which is considered not valid by the ethnomethodologists. both(prenominal) the theories have different perspectives on the role of the actor in a social interaction and he or she makes sense of their setting. Symbolic interactionists deliberate that the individual is the fundamental part to the processes and meaning of social interaction. Roles and identities are therefore attributed by the actor in social interaction and the social interaction happens in an internalised orientation where the actor can also take on the role of the other and has appreciation for the role of the other. Ethnomethodology has an alternative theory to the role of the actor and disagrees entirely with the role of the actor that is given by symbolic interactionists. Counter to symbolic interaction theory, ethnomethodology suggests that is not the actor that dictates the setting and meaning of a social interaction rather that the setting is self-organised and that organisation gives the roles of the actors and the others rather than it being chosen by their own consciousness. As salubrious as this ethnomethodologists rarely refer to the actor in social interaction but rather chose to refer to each individual as a member. As such the members in a social interaction do not build it themselves r ather they become a product of the interaction, this is in contrast to symbolic interaction where the actor builds the interaction from the inner self.In symbolic interaction each social interaction happens in a particular context and this can either be a coif context or a professional context. All contexts in symbolic interaction can be defined using ethnographic investigation by studying the context features of that interaction. Ethnomethodologists on the other hand believe that context is a product of the interaction and that any contextual features of an interaction are not clear beforehand but become clear during the interaction. Ethnomethodoligists such as Garfinkel do not believe that the symbolic interactionisms view of context does not give and accurate description of every form of interaction and therefore the use of context in Ethnomethodology is merely an extra interactional feature.Ethnomethodologists study behavioral norms not only by looking at the individual intera ctions, like symbolic interaction, but by attempting to break these norms and studying how society and the individual react. Through this theory Ethnomethodologists believe you get a clearer consensus of what is the norm as people find it difficult to describe what is the norm as most of it is in the sub-conscious.Ethnomethodlogists believe that it is only when these norms and behavioural patterns are broken that the norms become more apparent as people are not become accustomed to react to the new form of behaviour. A famous example of this method was when college students in the US were asked to act like guests in their own homes. They were told to be impersonal but semi-formal and to study the reaction of their parents and family. After explaining the experiment to their parents many parents described different reactions. Some parents believed they wanted something, others theme it was a joke and some believed they were hiding things. This experiment allowed the students to see that even informal norms that we take for disposed(p) in the home are carefully structured and by disrupting these norms they become clearer.However Ethnomethodology and Symbolic Interaction do have their similarities and despite their different approaches they do study the same area from similar perspectives. Both theories study the micro world of interaction theory and despite the particular that both are criticised for having a very narrow field of research they do look at very similar things. Although there is one area in which symbolic interaction is analyse in the macro world and that is in Goffmans study of ritual. Despite the fact that both theories study the perspective from the micro world, Ethnomethodology is rarely studied outside of two areas, the first being the household and the second being conversational. Ethnomethodology puts great emphasis on the role of communication in social interaction and therefore limits the field of study they can look at. Symbolic inter action covers a much broader field of study in the micro world. It does not only look at communicational interaction but also at the action and interpretation of the forms of social interaction.In conclusion it is obvious that these perspectives differ on how theyapproach the subject of social interaction but there differences do not mean that they are not very similar fields of study. bloody shame Gallant suggests that both ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism share a verstehen2 approach and that they both interpret behaviour by taking actors meanings into account3. However where they differ is in their approach to the topic of social interaction and therefore they gain different kinds of understanding repayable to the fact that they are seeking answers to different questions. This is due to the fact that Ethnomethodology studies social interaction from a largely phenomenological4 viewpoint and looks at how individuals look at the real world with particular focus on commun ication and speech. Whereas symbolic interactionism is part of the critical impost5 and looks more at how people give meaning to the world around them. Despite the fact that as Dennis suggest the Ethnomethodological approach means that the symbolic interactionists focus on actor, meaning and context is inessential6 it does see it as a valid sociological perspective7. So although there are many differences in the perspectives the theories have on social interaction they do have similar ship canal of looking at the world and they do both study the same micro field of sociology. script Count 1675Bibliography1. Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic interactionism Perspective and method. Univ of California Press, 1986.2. Dennis, Alex. Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology. Symbolic Interaction 34.3 (2011) 349-356.3. Denzin, Norman K. Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology A proposed synthesis. American Sociological Review (1969) 922-934.4. Gallant, Mary J., and Sherryl Kleinman. SYMBO LIC INTERACTIONISM VS ETHNOMETHODOLOGY. Symbolic Interaction 6.1 (1983) 1-185. Goffman, Erving. Interaction ritual Essays in face to face behavior.Aldine Transaction, 2005.6. Mead, George Herbert. Mind, self, and society From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Vol. 1. University of Chicago press, 2009.