Ethnomethodology vs. Interactionist Theory

Attribute	Ethnomethodology	Interactionist Theory
Founder	Harold Garfinkel	George Herbert Mead
Focus	Everyday social interactions	Socialization and identity formation
Methods	Conversation analysis, breaching experiments	Symbolic interactionism, role theory
Key Concepts	Indexicality, reflexivity	Self, symbols, roles
Approach	Microsociological	Microsociological

Introduction

Ethnomethodology and Interactionist Theory are two sociological perspectives that focus on the study of human behavior in social contexts. While both approaches share some similarities, they also have distinct differences in terms of their theoretical foundations, methodologies, and research focus.

Theoretical Foundations

Ethnomethodology, developed by Harold Garfinkel in the 1960s, is based on the idea that individuals create and maintain social order through their everyday interactions. Ethnomethodologists argue that social order is not imposed from above but is instead continuously negotiated and constructed by individuals in their interactions with others. In contrast, Interactionist Theory, influenced by the work of George Herbert Mead and Erving Goffman, focuses on the symbolic meanings that individuals attach to their actions and the ways in which these meanings shape social interactions.

Methodologies

Ethnomethodology emphasizes the use of qualitative research methods, such as ethnography and participant observation, to study the ways in which individuals make sense of their social world. Ethnomethodologists are interested in uncovering the taken-for-granted assumptions and practices that underlie social interactions. In contrast, Interactionist Theory often employs a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, such as interviews and surveys, to examine how individuals interpret and respond to symbolic cues in their interactions with others.

Research Focus

One of the key differences between Ethnomethodology and Interactionist Theory lies in their research focus. Ethnomethodologists are primarily interested in understanding the methods that individuals use to create and maintain social order in their everyday interactions. They are less concerned with broader social structures and institutions and more focused on the micro-level processes of social interaction. In contrast, Interactionist Theory pays more attention to the ways in which individuals navigate social structures and institutions through their interactions with others.

Concept of Self

In terms of the concept of self, Ethnomethodology emphasizes the idea that individuals construct their identities through their interactions with others. According to ethnomethodologists, the self is not a fixed entity but is constantly negotiated and redefined in social interactions. Interactionist Theory, on the other hand, views the self as a product of socialization and the internalization of societal norms and values. Interactionists argue that individuals develop a sense of self through their interactions with others and the meanings they attach to these interactions.

Implications for Society

Both Ethnomethodology and Interactionist Theory have important implications for our understanding of society. Ethnomethodology challenges traditional sociological approaches that focus on social structures and institutions by highlighting the importance of everyday interactions in shaping social order. By focusing on the micro-level processes of social interaction, ethnomethodologists offer a unique perspective on how individuals create and maintain social order in their daily lives. Interactionist Theory, on the other hand, provides insights into how individuals interpret and respond to symbolic cues in their interactions with others, shedding light on the ways in which social meanings are constructed and negotiated.