Like phenomenology, ethnomethodology is all about meaning and, in particular, how it is communicated and shared between people. Reading Garfinkel's "Studies in Ethnomethodology" is a bit like reading a sitcom script in parts, if only because his brilliant breaching experiments expose the taken-for-granted absurdity of our everyday existence. Ponder the questions below as you work through the reading of Harold Garfinkel's work, "Studies in Ethnomethodology" in Section One of your text, Social Theory Re-Wired. Look at the recommended resources for this week for additional materials to help you complete this discussion.

Answer the following:

What does Garfinkel mean when he writes that moral facts are the "natural facts of life"?

What are "background expectancies" and how do they typically come about in everyday conversation?

Garfinkel gives us a series of experiments in which the background expectancies of conversation are made apparent, either by a student analyzing a conversation after the fact, as in the case of the husband and wife talking about Dana, or cases where experimenters deliberately disrupted the taken-for-granted assumptions. Think of an example where such background expectancies were important for your own conversation with someone to become meaningful. Explain and quote the conversation that occurred as they did in the reading.

Explain what methods you used to make the conversation "happen," or in other words, how you ensured that the "background expectancies" of your conversation were understood by the other person?

Explain how understanding other's background expectancies are useful in society.

Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims with examples from required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references.