Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft
- 作者: Niklas Luhmann
- 出版社/メーカー: Imprint unknown
- 発売日: 2007/05/24
- メディア: ペーパーバック
- クリック: 2回
- この商品を含むブログ (72件) を見る
- Chua Beng-Huat,
On the Commitments of Ethnomethodology,
Sociological Inquiry 44 (1974), S.241-256
CHUA Beng Huat 蔡明發, a Singaporean, obtained his PhD from York University, Toronto, Canada. He has held visiting professorships at universities in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Germany, Australia and the US. During his recent Distinguished Visiting Scholar Fellowship at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, he delivered the Inaugural Lecture of the Carolina Asia Center. He has published widely in urban planning and public housing, comparative politics in Southeast Asia and the emerging consumerism across Asia: Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore (London and New York: Routledge, 1995) and Political Legitimacy and Housing: Stakeholding in Singapore (London and New York: Routledge, 1997). He has edited, Consumption in Asia: Lifestyles and Identities (London and New York: Routledge, 2000). His most recent book is Life is Not Complete without Shopping (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 2003). A new book of which he is the contributing editor will be in print in March, 2004, entitled Communitarian Politics in Asia (London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon). In addition to being on the editorial board of many international social science and cultural studies journals, he is currently founding co-executive editor of the journal, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies (London: Routledge).
■なんだか「いかにもエスノ」(?)なタイトルの論文が：Democracy as Textual Accomplishment
By analysing a government commission's report, this essay demonstrates empirically the utility of ethnomethodology for ideological investigation and critique. In a liberal democratic society, publicly appointed investigative commissions must claim a non-interventionist stance toward opinions submitted to the commissions. This claim in turn furnishes the commissioners' display of having followed the due democratic processes in their objective reporting of the investigated situations. The ethnomethodologically informed analysis demonstrates that (i) commissioners cannot be non-interventionist and (ii) they necessarily discredit some segment of the public opinions by formulating these opinions as less than adequate in some ways, of which the formulation of "non-representativeness" is most readily available. Because of space limitations, this essay is only a precursor to the detailed analysis of "discrediting" practices in ideological production and reproduction.
McHoul has sought to extend the ethnomethodological position in the direction of deconstruction (McHoul, 1984) as well as a political linguistics (McHoul, 1988). Similarly, Chua(1977) has argued for a Marxist appropriation of ethnomethodology based on the value that ethnomethodology brings to a Marxist view by laying bare the process by which ideology is constructed and maintained in society. Dorothy Smith’s (1974) work on the social construction of documentary reality by government and other ruling bodies is deeply influenced by an ethnomethodological perspective that links the reporting and accounting procedures of formal organizations to the obviousness of social phenomena. The transformation of ethnomethodology into a critical theory in the traditional sense in which critical theory is understood, however, is likely to provoke rebuke from ethnomethodologists who perceive theoretical efforts that are articulated outside the context of particular settings as crossing the line between non-ironic and ironic accounts (e.g. Bogen and Lynch, 1990). Nevertheless, as Jayyusy (1991) notes, to deny that ethnomethodology can be heard that way is “paradoxically to defend the descriptivist stance in the process of abandoning it”.Chua, Beng-Huat. 1977. Delineating a Marxist Interest in Ethnomethodology. The American Sociologist 12: 24-32.
はぁぁぁ....transformation of ethnomethodology into a critical theory... そうですかー...。
以上（だけ）から推察されるのは、「EM informed カルスタさん（or 批判さん）」というところですか。
- ルーマンは「再帰性」について論じる際に、初期のころから** ガーフィンケル＆サックスの謂う「定式化」ネタを参照しているが、
- しかしそこには、後年に至るまで*** 微妙な誤解（or あえてする曲解?）がある。
- ところが驚いたことに、GdG のこの注では、定式化についてちゃんとした 理解を示している！
- いったい何が起こったのでしょう？ 参照されてるこの論文が分かりやすかったとか？？