Harold Garfinkel’s Ethnomethodology: A Sociological Perspective

Harold Garfinkel, one of the most innovative figures in twentieth-century sociology, developed Ethnomethodology as a new way to study everyday social life. Emerging in the 1960s as a response to the limitations of traditional sociological theories, ethnomethodology focuses on how people produce and maintain a sense of social order in their daily interactions. Rather than studying large-scale social structures or institutions, Garfinkel turned his attention to the ordinary, routine practices through which individuals create the social world around them. His approach revolutionized the field by shifting the focus from abstract systems to the methods and reasoning people use to make sense of their social reality.

Background and Intellectual Context

Harold Garfinkel (1917–2011) was influenced by phenomenology, particularly the works of Alfred Schutz, who emphasized the subjective meanings people attach to their experiences. Garfinkel was also deeply influenced by symbolic interactionism, which explores how individuals interact based on shared symbols and meanings, and by the work of Talcott Parsons, under whom he studied at Harvard. However, while Parsons focused on macro-level structures and systems of norms, Garfinkel took a micro-level approach, examining how individuals actually apply and interpret those norms in real-world interactions.

Ethnomethodology arose as a reaction to what Garfinkel perceived as sociology’s overreliance on theoretical models that ignored the practical reasoning and situated activities of everyday life. He believed that sociology had become too detached from the lived experiences of people. Thus, ethnomethodology aimed to uncover the “methods” (ethno = people, methodology = methods) ordinary people use to produce and sustain social order.

Meaning and Definition of Ethnomethodology

Ethnomethodology can be defined as the study of the everyday methods people use to understand, describe, and act within the social world. It is not concerned with social structures in the abstract sense, but with how those structures are accomplished through people’s ongoing interactions.

Garfinkel argued that social order is not a fixed entity existing independently of individuals, but a continuous accomplishment — something that has to be achieved repeatedly through communicative and interpretative practices. In his seminal work Studies in Ethnomethodology (1967), Garfinkel emphasized that the stability of social life depends on shared understandings and implicit rules that people constantly negotiate.

In short, ethnomethodology studies the “how” of social life — how people know what others mean, how they recognize social norms, and how they maintain a sense of normalcy and order in everyday situations.

Core Concepts of Ethnomethodology

1. Indexicality

Indexicality refers to the idea that the meaning of any statement or action depends on its context. Words, gestures, or actions do not carry fixed meanings; their interpretation varies according to the situation in which they occur. For instance, when someone says, “It’s cold in here,” the meaning might vary — it could be a simple statement about temperature, or an indirect request to close a window.

Garfinkel used this concept to show that social understanding is always context-dependent. People use contextual clues, shared knowledge, and common sense to interpret what others mean. This understanding challenges the notion of universal rules governing communication and behavior.

2. Reflexivity

Reflexivity, in ethnomethodology, refers to the circular relationship between social actions and the context in which they occur. Every social act not only occurs within a context but also helps to create and maintain that context. For example, in a courtroom, the behaviors of judges, lawyers, and witnesses continually produce and reinforce the “courtroom setting” as a legitimate social space governed by law.

Garfinkel emphasized that social facts are reflexive accomplishments — they both arise from and contribute to the ongoing order of society.

3. Accountability

Accountability, in ethnomethodological terms, means that individuals’ actions are understandable and recognizable within a given social setting. People act in ways that others can interpret as meaningful. Even seemingly chaotic behavior is guided by implicit rules that make sense to participants. Thus, “accountable” behavior does not mean moral responsibility but interpretability — the ability of actions to be seen as rational or coherent by others.

4. Breaching Experiments

One of Garfinkel’s most famous methodological innovations was the use of breaching experiments — deliberate disruptions of social norms to reveal the taken-for-granted rules that govern everyday life.

In these experiments, Garfinkel’s students were asked to act in unexpected or “abnormal” ways — such as treating family members as strangers, negotiating the price of items in a supermarket, or standing too close to someone during a conversation. The reactions of others — often confusion, anger, or laughter — exposed the invisible rules and expectations that structure social interactions.

Breaching experiments demonstrated how much of social order depends on unspoken agreements and mutual expectations. When these are violated, the fragile nature of social reality becomes visible.

Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis

Ethnomethodology gave rise to conversation analysis, pioneered by Harvey Sacks, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. Conversation analysis focuses on the detailed study of talk-in-interaction — how people use language to perform actions, manage turns, and construct meaning.

For example, conversation analysts study how people open and close conversations, repair misunderstandings, or take turns while speaking. This approach has revealed the complex, rule-governed nature of even the most mundane communication. It shows that ordinary conversation is a central site where social order is continuously produced and maintained.

Ethnomethodology and Mainstream Sociology

Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology stood in sharp contrast to mainstream sociological theories such as structural functionalism and positivism. While traditional sociology sought to identify general laws or patterns of social behavior, ethnomethodology rejected this search for universality. It viewed social reality as an ongoing, locally produced phenomenon that cannot be captured through rigid models or statistical generalizations.

For example, while Durkheim studied “social facts” as external, constraining forces, Garfinkel argued that social facts are the products of everyday practices. He inverted Durkheim’s approach by emphasizing that the sense of externality and objectivity of social norms arises from people’s routine efforts to make the world appear orderly.

In this way, ethnomethodology bridges phenomenology and sociology by showing that the “objective” social world is a product of subjective, intersubjective processes.

Criticism of Ethnomethodology

Despite its intellectual significance, ethnomethodology has faced criticism from various quarters:

1. Lack of Theoretical Structure: Critics argue that ethnomethodology focuses excessively on micro-level interactions without connecting them to broader social structures, institutions, or power relations.
2. Descriptive, Not Explanatory: Some sociologists claim that ethnomethodology merely describes how people act and interpret their world, without offering causal explanations or predictive power.
3. Neglect of Social Inequality: Marxist and feminist scholars argue that ethnomethodology ignores how class, gender, or race shape the methods people use to make sense of reality.
4. Obscure Language: Garfinkel’s writing style is often dense and difficult, making his work less accessible to students and general readers.

Nonetheless, its methodological rigor and focus on lived experience have influenced numerous subfields, including sociology of communication, organizational studies, and digital interaction research.

Legacy and Contemporary Relevance

Ethnomethodology has had a lasting influence on sociology and related disciplines. Its emphasis on the micro-foundations of social order has inspired research in fields like ethnography, conversation analysis, and workplace studies. In the digital era, ethnomethodological approaches are being used to study online interactions — how people construct meaning in social media, virtual meetings, and digital communities.

Moreover, ethnomethodology reminds sociologists that the foundations of social life are not abstract laws but the practical, everyday activities of real people. By examining the small details of human interaction, it offers profound insights into how society sustains itself.

Conclusion

Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology represents a fundamental shift in sociological thinking — from studying society as a system of structures to understanding it as an ongoing, lived accomplishment. It highlights that social order is not imposed from above but produced from below, through the daily practices of ordinary people. Despite criticism, ethnomethodology’s focus on meaning, interaction, and context remains vital for contemporary sociology. In a world increasingly shaped by complex communication and digital interactions, Garfinkel’s call to study “the methods of the people” continues to illuminate how humans collectively create and sustain the fabric of social life.

Topic related question

5 Marks Questions

1. Who is Harold Garfinkel and what is the main idea of ethnomethodology?
2. Define the term ethnomethodology in sociology.
3. What is meant by “indexicality” in ethnomethodology?
4. Explain the concept of “breaching experiments” used by Garfinkel.
5. How does ethnomethodology differ from traditional sociology?
6. What does Garfinkel mean by “accountability” in social interaction?
7. Mention one key influence on Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology.

10 Marks Questions

1. Discuss the main features and assumptions of Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology.
2. Explain the concepts of indexicality and reflexivity in Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology with suitable examples.
3. Evaluate the methodological contributions of Garfinkel’s breaching experiments in sociological research.
4. How did ethnomethodology challenge the dominance of structural functionalism in sociology?
5. Examine the relationship between ethnomethodology and conversation analysis.
6. Discuss how Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology contributes to the understanding of everyday life.

15 Marks Questions

1. Critically analyze Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology as an alternative sociological paradigm.
2. Discuss in detail the core concepts of ethno-methodology — indexicality, reflexivity, and accountability — and their significance in understanding social order.
3. Evaluate the strengths and limitations of ethno-methodology in contemporary sociological research.
4. Compare and contrast Garfinkel’s ethno-methodology with symbolic interactionism and phenomenology.
5. Examine the relevance of ethno-methodology in studying modern digital interactions and online communities.