“Passing” as Displaying “Normalcy”

DOI HANDLE Web Site Open Access

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • 「普通であること」の呈示実践としてのパッシング
  • 「普通であること」の呈示実践としてのパッシング : ガーフィンケルのパッシング論理を再考する
  • 「 フツウ デ アル コト 」 ノ テイジ ジッセン ト シテ ノ パッシング : ガーフィンケル ノ パッシング ロンリ オ サイコウ スル
  • Re-examining Garfinkel’s “Passing” Logic
  • ガーフィンケルのパッシング論理を再考する

Search this article

Abstract

This reconsiders the works of Garfinkel who conceptualized ethnomethodology and his logic of “passing” while seeking to clarify the realities of “passing” that the game model cannot fully explain. According to Garfinkel, there are aspects of the realities of “passing” that cannot be fully explained by Goffman’s logic of “passing” based on a game model. These aspects are reflexivity or situational manipulation and continuity.<br> The type of “passing” where the game model applies has episodic character, preplanning, and reliance upon instrumental knowledge of rules, whereas “passing” in a practical sense, i.e., the challenge of achieving the very ordinary, being self-evident to people, and blending into the background routine is something that game model cannot address. <br> Reconsidering the issue and taking this into consideration, it becomes clear when applying Garfinkel’s logic on “passing” that while it is possible to analyze“ passing” in a game model, the first task for those undergoing“ passing” is to achieve “normalcy,” be self-evident, and blend into the background. After confirming the structural incongruities between these two logics, I demonstrate the meaning of Garfinkel’s analysis through a case study. In doing so, I reevaluate “the paper of Agnes,” that played an important role in the founding of ethnomethodology and confirm its significance.

Journal

Related Projects

See more

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top