Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to begin to try to understand the extent to which ethnomethodology (EM) might be informed by some concepts and ideas from the work of the philosopher Martin Heidegger. This is done in two parts. The first looks at Heidegger's later work and compares his conception of the ontological difference with Garfinkel's work on the difference between EM and formal sociological analysis (FA). The second part turns to Heidegger's earlier work (around Being and Time) and works through a number of affinities between the analysis of Dasein and ethnomethodological versions of everydayness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashmore, M. (1989). The Reflexivity Thesis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brandom, R. (1983). Heidegger's Categories in Being and Time. The Monist66 (3): 387-409.
Colebrook, C. and McHoul, A. (1996). Interpreting Understanding Context. Journal of Pragmatics 25 (3): 431-440.
Czyzewski, M. (1994). Reflexivity of Actors versus Reflexivity of Accounts. Theory Culture and Society 11 (4): 161-168.
Dreyfus, H. (1991). Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the Routine Grounds of Everyday Activities. Social Problems 11 (3): 225-250.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H. (1968). Contributions to R.J. Hill and K.S. Crittenden (Eds.), Proceedings of the Purdue Symposium on Ethnomethodology(Institute for the Study of Social Change, Monograph #1). Purdue: Purdue University.
Garfinkel, H. (1996). Ethnomethodology's Program. Social Psychology Quarterly55 (1): 5-21.
Garfinkel, H. and Wieder, D.L. (1992). Two Incommensurable, Asymmetrically Alternate Technologies of Social Analysis. In G. Watson and R.M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology, pp. 175-206. Newbury Park: Sage.
Guignon, C. (1983). Heidegger and the Theory of Knowledge. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Heidegger, M. (1959). An Introduction to Metaphysics. Trans. R. Manheim. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell.
Heidegger, M. (1975). Early Greek Thinking. Trans. D. Farrell Krell and F.A. Capuzzi. New York: Harper and Row.
Heidegger, M. (1982). The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Trans. A. Hofstadter. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1984). The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic. Trans. M. Heim. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Krell, D.F. (1975). “Introduction” to Heidegger's Early Greek Thinking, pp. 3-12. New York: Harper and Row.
Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Okrent, M. (1988). Heidegger's Pragmatism: Understanding, Being, and the Critique of Metaphysics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Peyrot, M. (1982). Understanding Ethnomethodology: A Remedy for Some Common Misreadings. Human Studies5: 261-283.
Rorty, R. (1993). Wittgenstein, Heidegger and the Reification of Language. In C.B. Guignon (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, pp. 337-357. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schütz, A. (1962). Collected Papers Vol. 1: The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Nijhoff.
Schütz, A. (1967). The Phenomenology of the Social World. Trans. G. Walsh and F. Lehnert. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McHoul, A. How can Ethnomethodology be Heideggerian?. Human Studies 21, 13–26 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005328500762
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005328500762