8/9/2019 Review by Aaron v. Cicourel - New Rules of Sociological Method a Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. by

1/4

New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. byAnthony GiddensReview by: Aaron V. CicourelContemporary Sociology, Vol. 6, No. 5 (Sep., 1977), pp. 533-535Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2065325.

Accessed: 10/10/2014 04:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Sociological Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Contemporary Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:22:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2065325?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2065325?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa

8/9/2019 Review by Aaron v. Cicourel - New Rules of Sociological Method a Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. by

2/4

REVIEW

SYMPOSIA

533

problemwithAlford's heoretical

pproach.

He cannot larifyheroleofvoluntaryospi-

tals

because

he

does

not

pell

ut he

bjective

socio-economic

orceswhich onstrain

hem;

he cannot xplicate heunderlyingeality e-

hind he strategiesf nterest roups ecause

hisperspectiven thehealth are ystems not

rooted n

a theory

f

society. aught

etween

pluralismnd Marxism, ith ounifyinger-

spective

for

assimilating

iscrete social

phenomena into a coherent theoretical

framework,

lford

erives

his

categories

f

professional onopoly nd corporate

ation-

alization

rom he

mpiricaleality

f chaotic

medical are

ystem.

hen ater

e

attempts

o

extend

his

ad hoc

analysis

o

society

s a

whole:

the processes

nd forces

have de-

scribed re endemic o the structuref the

society

nd

political ystem

s

a whole and

must e

understood

t that

evel,

notwithinhe

context

f a

particular

nstitution

r the

par-

ticular nterests

f doctors

and

hospitals

(pp.261-262). he

contentionemains ncon-

vincing

ecause

he aws for

eneralizing

rom

the

particular

re

never

learly

nunciated.

It

is therefore

ot

surprising

hatAlford s

pessimisticbout

the

potential

or

hange

n

thehealth are sector. here

s

no

theoretical

basis for ucha hope. All policies nd pro-

grams o reformhemedical are ystemnthe

last

twenty ears ead to the same stalemate

created

y

the

ontendingtructuralnterests.

Contradictions bound n Alford's nalysis

but

they

ead nowhere.

ome,

ike

the

con-

tradiction

etween he

nterests

f

corporate

rationalizers nd professionalmonopolists,

couldbe

more

ruitfullyonceptualized

s con-

flictingressures nd demands.Others, uch

as the

contradiction

etween

he

expecta-

tionsof

consumers or

quality

are and

the

inabilityf theprivate ector o provide t for

everyonep.255)

or

between

he

character f

health

are technologynd theprivate ppro-

priation

f

power

and

resources p.251) ap-

proach

he

dea

of

contradiction

n

the

Marxist

sense-the

tendency

nherent

o a

specific

modeof

production

o

destroy

he

conditions

on which t

depends

or urvival.

ut

in Al-

ford's

nalysis

onflictnd contradiction

nly

reaffirmtasis.He offers

ohistoricalerspec-

tive

n

the

health are

system

nd no account

of the

relationship

etween he health ector

and broaderdevelopmentsn theAmerican

economy.

We are leftwith

no

sense of

what

specific

ontradictionsn

the

presentmight

generatehange

n

the uture. lford'smethod

dictateshis

conclusion-temporary

istorical

conditions

ecome

permanent

tructuralttri-

butes.

In his final hapter

lford

ketches

utthe

beginnings f

an alternative

erspective,

class or

institutional

erspective.

Once

againAlford's

nalysis

eflects

isuncertainty

of thetheoretical

errainnd

an unwillingness

to choosebetweenwodistinct ethodological

orientations.

hedynamics

ithouthange,

e

argues,

an be attributed

o the dominance

f

theprivate

ector nd the

uppermiddle

lass

(p.254).

Classes,

however, emain

ssentially

spectators

o thepower

truggleetween

on-

tending

tructural

nterests.

t is notthe

rela-

tionship

etween

classes

that

will generate

political

truggle

nd change

but the deus

ex

machina

f a social

movement

nd political

leadership

hich s

notyet

isible p.266).

An

institutional

erspective,

n

the other

hand,

(andAlford as separated hem nhismore

recent

ork)

must urely ake

nto ccount

he

role of the

state.But

thestate s

a shadowy

entity

n Health

Care

Politics,

with ittle

au-

tonomy. t

is not an independent

ower

standing

bove and beyond

the competing

interestroups,

utrepresents

hangingoali-

tionsof

elements

rawn

rom arious

truc-

tural nterests

p.251).

Alford

hereforeg-

noreswhat

s

perhaps

he

fundamentalource

offuture

truggle

nthe

health

are ector-the

changing odes f nterventionythe tatenhealth are.

Health

Care

Politicshas exposed

thefailures

of

the pluralist

pproach

o the

politics

f

health care

and it

should encourage

sociologists

o

pursue

n understanding

f

the

health are

sector s a

whole.

Alfordromises

to

broaden

hat

nderstanding

ith

n elabora-

tion

of his class perspective

nto

theory

f

state-society

elationships

n a

forthcoming

work n political

ociology.

his s

an

impor-

tant ransitionaltep

which

may

take

us be-

yonddynamics ithouthange oan analysis

of the health

care

crisis as

part

of

the

broader

fiscal risis

f the state

n

late

capitalism.

New

Rules

of

Sociological

Method:

A

Positive

Critique

of

Interpretative

ociologies,

by

ANTHONY

GIDDENS.

New

York:

Basic

Books,

1976.

192pp.

$10.95

loth.

AARON

.

CICOUREL

University f California,San Diego

The

book

underreview

s a

sympathetic

critique

nd

evaluation

f ociological

heories

concerned

ith

meaningful

ction,

action

as rationalized

onduct

rdered eflexively

y

human

gents,

nd

of

the

way anguage

elps

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:22:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/9/2019 Review by Aaron v. Cicourel - New Rules of Sociological Method a Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. by

3/4

534

CONTEMPORARY

SOCIOLOGY:

A JOURNAL

OF

REVIEWS

tomakemeaningfulction

ossible.

he notion

of elf-reflections mediatedinguisticallys an

organizingheme f thebook.The title efers

to method n the

traditionf European o-

cial

philosophers,

ot

n

the

ense of how

re-

searchsdone n a substantive,mpiricalon-

text.

The introductoryhapter evealsGiddens's

sympathiesorkey

aspects

of

whathe calls

interpretive

ociologies, particularlydeas

associated with Schutz and

Garfinkel.

or

example,

Giddens escribes he

production

f

society s a skilled

performance

hatde-

pends n the

ncountersr activitiesfhuman

beings cting s

practical heorists. embers

of a group re said to utilize heir

ractical

resources r mutual

nowledge

o

generate

social nteraction,ndthisknowledges also

routinelyhared nd used

by social

scientists

for

understanding

heir wn

activities

nd the

activitiesfmembers

hom

hey tudy.

eflex-

ive understanding

nd

the

social context f

language s a sign-systemhatmediates racti-

cal social ife

re

also discussed

riefly

n the

introduction,hese deas re ncorporatednto

the new

rules

in the

closing ages

of the

book.

In

chapter ne Giddens

gain mphasizes

he

point hat he chools fthoughte discusses

are

all

concerned

ith

problems

f

anguage

and

meaning

n

relation o the

interpretive

understanding'f human ction

p.23).

He

lists hree uch chools: hermeneutic

hilos-

ophy, ordinaryanguage hilosophy

om-

bined with

the later

Wittgenstein,

nd

phenomenology. henomenologys viewed

as

having

cted s

a

broker etween ermeneu-

tic

philosophynd

ordinaryanguage hilos-

ophy

and

the

later

Wittgenstein.

am not

aware

of

workbyGarfinkel

o

establish

his

link s claimed yGiddens, utothersssoci-

atedwith he erm

thnomethodology

ave

at-

tempted

o connectdeasfrom

chutz

o deas

in

Austin ndWittgenstein.

In

chapter

ne Giddens

rovides

hereader

with

useful escription

f

Schutz'swritings,

and hen

iscusses everal ssues romhewrit-

ings fWinch ndGarfinkel.e challengeshe

indifferencef

ethnomethodology

o sociol-

ogy, noting

ow

they

both

clearly

hare an

interest

n

the same ssues. There s a useful

descriptionf problems ssociatedwiththeterm indexical xpressions, utGiddenss

not

very learwhen

alking

bout he

regress

problem. is discussion f

he

egress roblem

suffersrom

reliance

n the

narrow

iews f

Hindess

nd n nadequateppreciation

fvar-

ious

empiricaltudies

gnored y

this

book.

Giddens

mbraces

manykeyconcepts pp.

52-53) from he nterpretiveociologieswhile

criticizingheauthors itedfor ailing

o deal

with ction s praxis nstead f only

with c-

tion s meaning. e faults he nterpretiveiew

fornotrecognizinghe entral ole hat ower

occupies n social ife, or ailing orecognize

that ocialnorms r rules an be

differentially

interpreted,nd finally e sees a failureo ad-

dressproblems f nstitutionalransformation

and history. ll ofthese riticismsarry ome

truth. ne problem ere s the elective

eview

of the

iteratureonducted y Giddens.

This

selectivityeadshim o gnore mpirical

ssues,

particularlys theyderivefrom

ifferences

within

hat s called ethnomethodology.

The

theme f anguage nd understanding

s

pursued when addressing authors like

Gadamer, pel, nd Habermas. he issuesof

living n a language,meanings-in-context,

and ordinaryanguage, re presumed o be

relevanto how hese deas can contributeo a

study f nstitutionaltructures.ssues ike he

dominationf men

and

women nd

the pro-

gress f human elf-understanding

re tiedto

the

role of anguage

n

everydayife nd the

problem f meanings-in-context.

In

chapter wo heres a discussion

f ction

or

agency

nd tsrelation

o

intention,

here-

flexivemonitoringf conduct hat eads to

somekind

f principled

ccount

f

completed

action, nd the separation

f

meaning

n in-

teractionrommeaning

n

non-communicative

acts. The person

r

acting

elf s

seen

as the

basis

for

n

analysis

f action.Much of

this

chapter

deals

with

theoretical ssues

that

straddle

hilosophy

nd

sociology.

ere

Gid-

dens strikes

ut

on

his

own

to

define nd ex-

plain some basic concepts

hathe feels

are

foundationallements

f

sociological

heory.

The

issues

raised

in

chapter

ne are

again

found nchapterwo whenhe discusseshow

lay actors participaten, monitor,

nd

pro-

duce social ife.

He continues

his

ineof dis-

cussionby

reference

o

the

role

of common-

sense

understandings,

nd how social

scien-

tists' tudies

f uch ctivities

an

become

art

of

the

ubject-mattereing

esearched.

In

chapter

hree

imitationsn

the

workof

Durkheimnd

Parsons

re discussed

riefly.

Marxisms examined

s an alternativeo

Durk-

heim

nd

Parsons.

But we are then

brought

back owhat s now familiarheme;he eflex-ive monitoringy humans f their lace in

their

nvironment,

nd

how his

s

made

possi-

ble

by anguage.

e uses

anguage

s

a

conven-

ient

way

to

exemplify

ome entral

eatures

f

social ife. he

key spects

f he

roduction

f

interaction

re described

s

its

negotiated

meaningfulonstitution,

ts

constitution

s a

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:22:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/9/2019 Review by Aaron v. Cicourel - New Rules of Sociological Method a Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. by

4/4

REVIEW

SYMPOSIA

535

moral

rder, nd

how relationsf power re

established. ower

s viewed s a

general ea-

ture f social

nteraction,

herebyctors an

alter

he course of a

seriesofeventsby the

resources r

facilitieshey an mobilizen the

pursuit f practical ctivities.

In

his

concludingemarks iddens utlines

his

new rules. They nclude

he dea of a

sociology oncernedwith

social worldpro-

ducedby the active oings f

ubjects. The

skilled ctivitiesf

membersre

seen s neces-

sary

o

produce

nd

reproduceociety.

ocial

actors re always

historically

ounded

n

pur-

suing ction,

utwe must

istinguish

etween

intentionalctionndbehaviorhat anbe

seen

s

a setof occurrences. tructures seenboth

as

constraining

nd as

enabling

onditions.

Ideas about intentionalctionand structure

presupposehree

rimitive

erms

n

social

sci-

ence:

meanings, orms,

nd

power.

The

study

of

ocial ife equires bservers o

make

se

of

their wn

knowledge

s

members hen topic

is

chosenfor

nvestigation.esearchersmust

be

participants

o

generate

heir

ociological

characterizations,

ut

hey o nothaveto

go

native to do

successful esearch.

inally,

double hermeneutic

overns

ociological

concepts

n

that

n

the

one

hand

theoretical

schemes n all of thesciences are like self-

contained

oncepts,

nd

are also a form f

practical

ctivity. ut

these

chemesmust e

understood

from

within. n

sociology

he

study

f

social life occurs within rames

f

meaning

nd

nterpretationenerated

y

those

being

tudied uch that

reinterpretation

c-

curs hatmediates

etween

rdinary

ndtech-

nical

anguage. ociologists

must

se

metalan-

guages

of social science

to

follow

the her-

meneutic

xplication

nd

mediation

f di-

verse

forms f

life,

nd

theymust ee the

productionndreproductionfsociety s a

human

ccomplishment.

There

re several

spects

fthis

ook that

like.

Giddens s not

afraid o tackle

omplex

theoreticalssues that

many

thershave de-

scribed

nadequately.

e reveals

strong rasp

of

theoretical

ssues

hat

ave

not

proven ery

popular

with other

contemporary

heorists.

The abstract

heme e

proposes

etween an-

guage

nd

meaningsnd he

roduction

nd he

reproduction

f

society

s one that

believe

s

central osociology. owever, donot elieve

he has

alwaysdone his homeworkn

tracing

out

the

mplications

f this

hesis.He fails o

discuss he

ymbolic

nteractionists,xcept

or

a few

passing

emarksbout

Goffman's ork.

He does not

realizehow

mportant

hework f

Searle and

Grice has

been

for

ontemporary

linguists

nd

psychologists

oncernedwith

pragmatics nd

informationrocessing, nd

virtuallygnores he

important ork of an-

thropologicalinguistsnd the ethnographic

semanticists.There s onereferenceo a paper

by Hymes.) The referenceso linguists nd

psycholinguistsresparse ndnot lways ele-

vant o

his general heme,

while

many

works

that re quite relevant o

his thesis re not

cited.He does notcoverthe

empirical orks

associated

with he term

thnomethodology,

and

gnoresmany mportant

ifferencesithin

this reathat o beyond

he bstract heoreti-

cal

issues

he

discusses.

inally,

he

rguments

of

thebook are stated oo abstractlyo have

much impact on most empirically-minded

American ociologists.

But despite

he drawbacks think t is a

valuablebook. It provides s with sympa-

thetic

utdetached

iew

of ssuesthat hould

be

incorporated

ntomainstream

heory.

THOMAS

F.

GIERYN

Columbia

University

TheNewYork

eview f

Books is formany

scholars

heVogue f he

ntellectualorld. o

it s that heNobelLaureatenMedicine, . B.

Medawar, ought

ts

pages

to

parade

hecur-

rentlyashionable

ins of

sociologists. ocial

scientists,

t

s

said,chase after

himericalm-

ages

of

natural

cience, elieving hat

recise

measurements ntrinsically

raiseworthy,hat

facts re

prior

o

beliefs,

nd that

omputer

processed

statistical ormulas

provide the

shortest oute o

understanding.ever mind

thepracticing

atural cientists ho

have not

relegated uch

deas to the

bargain asement,

andnevermind he ocial

cientists

honever

even riedhem n.Fashionable astesn ntel-

lectual ebates ave n

objective orce o mat-

terhow

poorly

hey

it he

eality

fthe

ase,

and

Medawar s

not alone

n

thisview.

Anthony iddens s

decidedly

u

courant.

This

atestbook

in

his

serieson sociological

theory

egins

with n

echo of

Medawar's

n-

dictment.

ociology,

t

seems, suffers rom

cognitive

ag:

sets of ideas

become

popular

here

even

as

theybecome

obsolete

n

other

intellectual

omains.

f

positivism o

longer

describesnatural cience,we are told that

sociologists

re till

workingway

noften acit

accord with

ts

principles.

f

phenomenology

hasbegun

ts

clipse

n

philosophy,s

Giddens

suggests,

more

ociologists

ind t

congenial.

Happily,Giddens oes

not top

withmechan-

ical

recitationf the view that

ociology

s a

collective

nachronism:

e

provides

fresh

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:22:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp