Eisenmann2021

From emcawiki
Revision as of 20:45, 20 April 2021 by JakubMlynar (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Clemens Eisenmann; Michael Lynch; |Title=Introduction to Harold Garfinkel's Ethnomethodological "Misreading" of Aron Gurwitsch on the Ph...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Eisenmann2021
BibType ARTICLE
Key Eisenmann2021
Author(s) Clemens Eisenmann, Michael Lynch
Title Introduction to Harold Garfinkel's Ethnomethodological "Misreading" of Aron Gurwitsch on the Phenomenal Field
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Aron Gurwitsch, Harold Garfinkel, Ethnomethodology, Conversation analysis, Phenomenology, Gestalt theory, Sociology of perception, Practice theory, In press
Publisher
Year 2021
Language English
City
Month
Journal Human Studies
Volume
Number
Pages
URL Link
DOI 10.1007/s10746-020-09564-1
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article is the editors’ introduction to the transcript of a lecture that Harold Garfinkel delivered to a seminar in 1993. Garfinkel extensively discusses the relevance of Aron Gurwitsch’s phenomenological treatment of Gestalt theory for ethnomethodology. Garfinkel uses the term “misreading” to signal a respecification of Gurwitsch’s phenomenological investigations, and particularly his conceptions of contextures, functional significations, and phenomenal fields, so that they become compatible with detailed observations and descriptions of social actions and interactions performed in situ. Garfinkel begins with Gurwitsch’s demonstrations with line drawings and other abstract examples, and suggests how they can be used to suggest original procedures for investigating the vicissitudes of embodied practical actions in the lifeworld. This introduction to the lecture aims to provide some background on the scope of Gurwitsch’s phenomenological critique and elaboration of Gestalt theory and Garfinkel’s “misreading” of it in terms of his own conceptions of indexicality and accountability, and ethnomethodological investigations of the production of social order.

Notes