あなたの研究に一番影響を与えた理論家の名前を教えてください3 memo

Liberman2013

It is true that Garfinkel was highly distrustful of all theorized accounts. He once told a seminar (Garfinkel, 1979–80), “I’ll kill you if you theorize. If anybody comes in with a theory, I’ll burn it publicly.” Nevertheless, he read social theory all of his life and was especially given to reading the phenomenological masters, especially Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, but also Heidegger, Schutz, Gurwitsch, and Derrida.

Carlin2014(review of Liberman2013)

Liberman (pp. 4–5) asserts that Garfinkel was committed to careful readings of phenomenology. What we cannot do, however, given Garfinkel’s policy of ‘‘deliberate misreading’’, is ‘‘reconstruct’’ what he derived from these texts, what Garfinkel (Hinkle et al. 1977) would have termed the ‘‘pedagogic interest’’ in his work.

appendix
While seeming a step back, this brilliant book is a major advance. However, when Liberman argues that ‘‘Since Husserl himself kept respecifying his project, it would be foolhardy for us to freeze phenomenology in a final form circa 1938 that would disallow our own faithful respecifications’’ (p. 269), it is a shame such sagacity was not applied to Garfinkel.

appendix;Cuff1994

The work of Garfinkel's close associate, the late Harvey Sacks,is prima facie more directly helpful in that it can be seen not only to derive from ethnomethodological orientations, but also to focus directly on conversational materials. We detect, however, some strain between the approaches of Garfinkel and Sacks to the study of everyday settings. This strain is perhaps expressed in Garfinkel's description of Sack's treatment of conversational materials as "dealing with docile texts".