This article is the editors’ introduction to the transcript of a lecture that Harold Garfinkel delivered to a seminar in 1993. Garfinkel extensively discusses the relevance of Aron Gurwitsch’s phenomenological treatment of Gestalt theory for ethnomethodology. Garfinkel uses the term “misreading” to signal a respecification of Gurwitsch’s phenomenological investigations, and particularly his conceptions of contextures, functional significations, and phenomenal fields, so that they become compatible with detailed observations and descriptions of social actions and interactions performed in situ. Garfinkel begins with (...) Gurwitsch’s demonstrations with line drawings and other abstract examples, and suggests how they can be used to suggest original procedures for investigating the vicissitudes of embodied practical actions in the lifeworld. This introduction to the lecture aims to provide some background on the scope of Gurwitsch’s phenomenological critique and elaboration of Gestalt theory and Garfinkel’s “misreading” of it in terms of his own conceptions of indexicality and accountability, and ethnomethodological investigations of the production of social order. (shrink)

In this article I intend to explore the conception of science as it emerges from the work of Husserl, Schutz, and Garfinkel. By concentrating specifically on the issue of science, I attempt to show that Garfinkel’s views on the relationship between science and the everyday world are much closer to Husserl’s stance than to the Schutzian perspective. To this end, I explore Husserl’s notion of science especially as it emerges in the Crisis of European Sciences, where he describes the failure (...) of European science and again preaches for a return to the “things themselves”. In this respect I interpret ethnomethodology’s most recent program as an answer to that call originating from a sociological domain. I then argue that the Husserlian turn within ethnomethodology marks the split between Garfinkel and Schutz. In fact I try to show that Schutz’s epistemological work is only partially inspired by phenomenology and that his conception of science retains a rationalist stance that ethnomethodology opposes. In the final section I briefly discuss Garfinkel’s most recent program as a way of closing the gap between theory and experience by linking the topics of science to the radical experiential phenomena. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungObwohl Sportinteraktionen selten ohne einen Unparteiischen ablaufen, ist dieser Umstand soziologisch kaum erforscht. Die Spielleitung im Fußball, dem hier das Hauptinteresse gehört, ist in der Regel an einen neutralen Dritten delegiert, der das Spiel situativ beeinflusst, wie z.B. Elfmeterentscheidungen zuweilen drastisch vor Augen führen. Über einen Vergleich von Spielen ohne Schiedsrichter mit dem Kreisligafußball frage ich nach den strukturellen Unterschieden, die die Anwesenheit eines Schiedsrichters erzeugt. Dabei zeigt sich, dass ihre Präsenz die lautere und unlautere Konkurrenz im Spiel erhöht und (...) dass sich Spieler und Schiedsrichter in einer strategischen Interaktion befinden. Schließlich beschreibe ich die dramaturgischen Herausforderungen für Schiedsrichter, wie etwa ihre Darstellung von Neutralität und sicheren Entscheidungen. (shrink)