Lidz1978
| Lidz1978 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Lidz1978 |
| Author(s) | Charles W. Lidz |
| Title | Conspiracy, paranoia and the problem of knowledge |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Paranoia, Reflexivity |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 1978 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Qualitative Sociology |
| Volume | 1 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 3–20 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/BF02390162 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Using a case study, this paper presents a critique of Lemert's classic paper, “Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion.” Starting from the position that Lemert did not prove his case, that in fact, there are no clear-cut grounds for determining whether an event called a conspiracy really exists, this case study leads to a consideration of the ethnomethodological notion of reflexivity of common sense knowledge.
Notes
See also: Jay Corzine, On the nature of paranoia (comment on Lidz,QS September, 1978). Qualitative Sociology 2 (1979): 104-7 and: Charles W. Lidz, What Did Lemert Mean and Does It Matter: A Reply to Corzine. Qualitative Sociology 2 (1979): 108-9
