Harris2009
| Harris2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Harris2009 |
| Author(s) | Scott R. Harris |
| Title | Four ethnomethodological paradoxes: Reflections on the work of Kenneth Liberman |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Kenneth Liberman |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Studies in Symbolic Interaction |
| Volume | 33 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 443-457 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1108/S0163-2396(2009)0000033026 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This chapter summarizes and explicates the work of Kenneth Liberman, an exemplary but underappreciated practitioner of ethnomethodology for the past 30 years. Four paradoxes or tensions organize the discussion. First, Liberman is highly confident that confidence is almost always unwarranted. Second, Liberman is extremely skeptical yet respectful of ordinary knowledge and practices. Third, Liberman insists that meaning is not inherent even while he tries to faithfully study and represent reality. Fourth, Liberman attempts to do work that benefits various individuals and groups, but he believes that the self is illusory and that social problems are interpretations. These four themes are common (but not universal) in ethnomethodological scholarship. Consequently, Liberman's work can be used as an instructive point of entry into that form of inquiry.
Notes
