Abstract
This essay focuses on the “cultural dope,” an ironic reference in Harold Garfinkel’s Studies in Ethnomethodology to the rule-following actor in conventional sociological theories. In the nearly half-century since the publication of that book, the “cultural dope” has been incorporated into numerous criticisms of “models of man” in the human sciences. Garfinkel’s account appeals to many writers because it seems to present an alternative picture of the actor: an individual who is self-aware, reflective, and skilled in the conduct of daily affairs. A problem with such a generalized picture of the actor is that it may seem to encourage uncritical acceptance of whatever “the public” (or a broad segment of the public) happens to believe or support. This paper revisits Garfinkel’s account of the cultural dope, and contrasts “conservative” and “radical” readings of what Garfinkel does with that figure. The “conservative” reading leaves the edifice of a social-structural model largely intact, and provides an alternative, more complex, picture of individual action than that of a cultural dope. The “radical” reading places relevant social structures in a dependent relation to the contingencies of action, and thus destabilizes the very theoretical edifice that sets up the problem of how to integrate individual actions with stable social structures. In line with the “radical” reading, this paper suggests that Garfinkel creates serious difficulty for any generalized “model of man,” regardless of whether it portrays the individual as active or passive, well-informed or ignorant, or reflexive or not.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (1991). Respecification: Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society (I)—an announcement of studies. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 10–19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Oxford: Polity Press.
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. (1972). Dialectic of enlightenment. New York: Herder and Herder.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button (Ed.), Talk and social organization (pp. 152–205). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Lynch, M., & Bogen, D. (1996). The spectacle of history. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Parsons, T. (1937). The structure of social action, Vol. 1–2. New York: Free Press.
Parsons, T. (1959). Economy, polity, money and power. Unpublished manuscript (cited in Garfinkel, 1967: 69n.).
Pleasants, N. (1998). Experimentation in the social sciences: Cultural dope or reflexive agent? A reflexive critique of ethnomethodology. Ethnographic Studies, 3, 17–40.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. 1). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schegloff, E. (1988/1989). From interview to confrontation: Observations of the Bush/Rather encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22, 215–240.
Schutz, A. (1964). Common sense and scientific interpretation of human action. In A. Schutz (Ed.), Collected papers I: The problem of social reality (pp. 3–47). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., & Kaye, J. (2005). Reflective design. Unpublished paper, Information Sciences, Cornell University. Culturally Embedded Computing Group. http://www.epl.scu.edu/~stsvalues/readings/reflectivedesign.pdf. Accessed 28 July 2011.
Sharrock, W. W., & Button, G. (1991). The social actor: Social action in real time. In G. Button (Ed.), Ethnomethodology and the human sciences (pp. 137–175). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wynne, B. (2003). Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 401–417.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lynch, M. Revisiting the Cultural Dope. Hum Stud 35, 223–233 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-012-9227-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-012-9227-z