Ethnomethodology and symbolic interaction perspectives differ in their approach Essay

Ethnomethodology and emblematic primal innate fundamental fundamental fundamental fundamental inter kneadion persuasions differ in their draw close. Explain how these emplacements differ Ethnomethodology and emblematical fundamental fundamental interaction be two sub-categories in the societal hypothesis of interaction. fundamental interactionism foc dos on the details of peoples usual lives and how people exercise symbolism to pass on hardly also to maintain our graphic symbol and the impression others have of us as individuals. some(prenominal) perspectives work analogous separate of friendly interaction and look at behavioral and favorable norms in raw order of magnitude. However they differ slightly in both their approach to analyzing brotherly norms precisely also have contrastive perspectives on the basis of modern amicable norms.Symoblic interaction studies and theorises the way in which individuals in nightclub act towards all(prenominal) other ground on the means that they have for variant actions and processes. The signification we attach to accredited actions is the increase of the individuals previous social interaction and thus the individual continues to speak and modify their own rendering during all their social encounters. One of the founding theorists of the emblematicalalal interaction was Herbert Blumer and he suggested that we attach marrow to the actions of other individuals and whence we do non only respond to the actions of the individual exclusively also to the signification we attach to that action. consequently people behave and react, in social interaction, because of what they deal and not by what is pickings place at the time. Thus the tress of society is based on homophile exposition of social action and thusly social bonds atomic number 18 only form finished two individuals empathizeation of behaviour.The opening and signifi send awayce of Ethnomethodology tush be organise by breaking down the reciprocation into its comp sensationnt parts. Ethno meaning people, method meaning method and ology meaning the moot of diagnoses Ethnomethodology the mull of the method of people. A better commentary of the theory is the study of society in bothday life and the analysis of the use of knowledge, actions and interpretations in social situation. Ethnomethodlogists be arouse in understanding how an individual makes guts of the social institutionly concern and is linked to phenomenology. Harold Garfinkel forceful the use of expression and communication as way of analysing the way people make finger of their environment.This center on on language and communications gives us one of the make out differences in the approach of both theories. Whilst Ethnomethodology puts wildness on the affair of language and communication, emblematic interaction puts greater fury on actions and interpretations of the individual in social interaction. The genius of meaning of social interaction is fundamental in both symbolic interaction and ethnomethodology. The definition of meaning and how it utilise and analysed is substantially different between the two perspectives. In symbolic interaction meaning is the interpretation given by the instrument to the panorama they are in therefore the meaning is the product of the individuals social interactions notwithstanding is interpreted on during the interaction. Blumer says meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters1. despite ethnomethodologists agreeing with symbolic interactionists that meaning is formed in social interaction they differ in the fact that they put forward that meanings only exist in certain circumstances and that developing and changing through differing forms of social interaction.This difference in the interpretation of meaning results in different feelings on certai n types of research method and what selective information is used and the validity of that data. In ethnomethodology the focus is put on the social interaction or communication, they are studying, whilst it takes place and therefore video recording, live observation and strait recordings are used as the name methods of research and analysis. However in symbolic interaction there is more than more than focus put on line of products notes and post social interaction recollections much(prenominal) as interviews and group discussions which in the cogitation of symbolic interaction is valid ample to gain the point of view of the p government agencytarian. This is in stark contrast to ethnomethodology who conceptualize that the actors point of view is opposed in sociological study. There is much criticism of the symbolic interactionist method as there is no set anatomical structure in their methods and they rely heavily upon the actor to give his or her point of view which is considered not valid by the ethnomethodologists.Both the theories have different perspectives on the role of the actor in a social interaction and he or she makes sense of their setting. typic interactionists believe that the individual is the fundamental part to the processes and meaning of social interaction. Roles and identities are therefore attributed by the actor in social interaction and the social interaction happens in an internalised orientation where the actor can also take on the role of the other and has appreciation for the role of the other. Ethnomethodology has an secondary theory to the role of the actor and disagrees totally with the role of the actor that is given by symbolic interactionists. attender to symbolic interaction theory, ethnomethodology suggests that is not the actor that dictates the setting and meaning of a social interaction sooner that the setting is self-organised and that organisation gives the roles of the actors and the others rather t han it universe chosen by their own consciousness. As well as this ethnomethodologists rarely elevate to the actor in social interaction but rather chose to refer to individually individual as a portion. As such the members in a social interaction do not build it themselves rather they become a product of the interaction, this is in contrast to symbolic interaction where the actor builds the interaction from the upcountry self.In symbolic interaction each social interaction happens in a particular stage setting and this can either be a lay condition or a professional consideration. whole contexts in symbolic interaction can be defined using ethnographical investigation by studying the context features of that interaction. Ethnomethodologists on the other hand believe that context is a product of the interaction and that any contextual features of an interaction are not clear beforehand but become clear during the interaction. Ethnomethodoligists such as Garfinkel do not bel ieve that the symbolic interactionisms view of context does not give and accurate description of ein truth form of interaction and therefore the use of context in Ethnomethodology is merely an purposeless interactional feature.Ethnomethodologists study behavioural norms not only by looking at the individual interactions, like symbolic interaction, but by attempting to break these norms and studying how society and the individual react. Through this theory Ethnomethodologists believe you get a clearer consensus of what is the norm as people find it difficult to spot what is the norm as most of it is in the sub-conscious.Ethnomethodlogists believe that it is only when these norms and behavioural patterns are broken that the norms become more unmistakable as people are not become accustomed to react to the naked as a jaybird form of behaviour. A famous mannikin of this method was when college students in the US were asked to act like guests in their own homes. They were told to be impersonal but formal and to study the reaction of their parents and family. After explaining the experiment to their parents some another(prenominal) parents described different reactions. Some parents believed they valued something, others thought it was a joke and some believed they were hiding things. This experiment allowed the students to see that eve informal norms that we take for granted in the home are carefully unified and by disrupting these norms they become clearer.However Ethnomethodology and emblematic Interaction do have their similarities and despite their different approaches they do study the identical area from similar perspectives. Both theories study the micro instauration of interaction theory and despite the fact that both are criticised for having a very narrow range of research they do look at very similar things. Although there is one area in which symbolic interaction is studied in the macro world and that is in Goffmans study of ritual. Despi te the fact that both theories study the perspective from the micro world, Ethnomethodology is rarely studied foreign of two areas, the first being the family unit and the second being conversational. Ethnomethodology puts great emphasis on the role of communication in social interaction and therefore limits the battle line of products of study they can look at. emblematical interaction covers a much broader field of study in the micro world. It does not only look at communicatory interaction but also at the action and interpretation of the forms of social interaction.In conclusion it is obvious that these perspectives differ on how they approach the subject of social interaction but there differences do not mean that they are not very similar fields of study. Mary courageous suggests that both ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism share a verstehen2 approach and that they both interpret behaviour by taking actors meanings into composition3. However where they diff er is in their approach to the topic of social interaction and therefore they gain different kinds of understanding collectable to the fact that they are seeking answers to different questions. This is due to the fact that Ethnomethodology studies social interaction from a largely phenomenological4 standstill and looks at how individuals look at the realistic world with particular focus on communication and speech. Whereas symbolic interactionism is part of the decisive tradition5 and looks more at how people give meaning to the world around them. Despite the fact that as Dennis suggest the Ethnomethodological approach means that the symbolic interactionists focus on actor, meaning and context is unnecessary6 it does see it as a valid sociological perspective7. So although there are many differences in the perspectives the theories have on social interaction they do have similar ways of looking at the world and they do both study the aforementioned(prenominal) micro field of soci ology.Word Count 1675Bibliography1. Blumer, Herbert. Symbolic interactionism Perspective and method. Univ of California Press, 1986.2. Dennis, Alex. Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology. Symbolic Interaction 34.3 (2011) 349-356.3. Denzin, Norman K. Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology A proposed synthesis. American Sociological critique (1969) 922-934.4. Gallant, Mary J., and Sherryl Kleinman. SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM VS ETHNOMETHODOLOGY. Symbolic Interaction 6.1 (1983) 1-185. Goffman, Erving. Interaction ritual Essays in nervus to face behavior.Aldine Transaction, 2005.6. Mead, George Herbert. Mind, self, and society From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Vol. 1. University of Chicago press, 2009.