| Abstract [eng] |
The aim of this essay is to articulate and explicate the latter day radical version of ethnomethodology (EM), and critically assess the ethno-"methodological" presuppositions, main concepts, and especially an uncommunicative distinction between so called classical accountability and natural accountability. There are four dilemmas that confront Harold Garfinkel in his attempts to explicate the epistemological foundations of fundamental "radical phenomenon". They are following: first, the "dilemma of trivialization", including an unarticulated relation between the abstractedness and concreteness; second, the dilemma of relativism; third, the dilemma of empiricism; fourth, the contradiction between subjectivity and objectivity. The conclusion is that, despite the very interesting attempts of classical ethnomethodology to explicate empirically the phenomenology of social action, the latter day radical version of ethnomethodology give up the problem of meaningful and intelligible conditions of social action, and instead reflects Garfinkel's engagement with 1) a radical form of micro-linguistic a-theory and 2) a naturalist version of epistemological anti-realism. |
