Everyday Life Sociology

Author(s): Patricia A. Adler, Peter Adler and Andrea Fontana

Source: Annual Review of Sociology , 1987, Vol. 13 (1987), pp. 217-235
Published by: Annual Reviews

Stable URL: [Link]

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
[Link]

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual
Review of Sociology

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1987. 13:217-35
Copyright ? 1987 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

EVERYDAY LIFE SOCIOLOGY

Patricia A. Adler and Peter Adler

Department of Sociology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130

Andrea Fontana

Department of Sociology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154

Abstract
Everyday life sociology comprises a broad spectrum of micro perspectives:
symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, phenomenology, ethnomethodology,
and existential sociology. We discuss the underlying themes that bind these
diverse subfields into a unified approach to the study of social interaction. We
outline the historical development of everyday life sociology, indicating the
individuals, ideas, and surrounding context that helped to shape this evolving
theoretical movement. We then examine three contemporary developments in
everyday life sociology that represent significant theoretical, substantive, and
methodological advances: existential sociology, the sociology of emotions,
and conversation analysis. Within these areas, we outline major themes,
review recent literature, and evaluate their contribution to sociology. Every-
day life sociology has had influence outside its arena, stimulating grand
theorists to create various micro-macro syntheses. We consider these and their
relation to the everyday life themes. We conclude by discussing the major
critiques and assess the future promise and problems of this perspective.

INTRODUCTION

Any attempt to offer a brief but thorough outline of the focus and scope of
everyday life sociology is difficult because of its diversity and the lack of
systematic integration among its subfields. In fact, the sociology of everyday

217
0360-0572/87/0815-02 17$02.00

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
218 ADLER, ADLER & FONTANA

life is an umbrella term encompassing several related but distinct theoretical

perspectives: symbolic interactionism, dramaturgy, labeling theory, phenom-
enology, ethnomethodology, and existential sociology. The questions arise,
then: Is everyday life sociology merely a collection of fragmented parts,
arbitrarily referred to as a single perspective for the sake of maintaining
proprietary interests? Is there anything that characterizes the everyday life
perspective as a distinctive body of theory? We argue that everyday life
sociology does represent a theoretical arena (although it is often associated
with certain methods' and substantive interests) characterized by a clim
intellectual compatibility and eclectic synthesis among sociological thinkers
using a micro perspective. Within this overarching approach, individual
practitioners can seek relevance for their empirical findings by drawing on a
variety of interrelated perspectives, incorporating ideas from diverse camps
into their own theoretical formulations. The everyday life field has thus been
one of evolving adaptation, with new subfields emerging out of ideas
creatively drawn from both within and outside of micro sociology.

MAJOR TENETS OF EVERYDAY LIFE SOCIOLOGY

The Critique of Macro Sociology

A central impetus to the development of everyday life sociology was the
growing dissatisfaction in mid-twentieth century American social thought
with the approach contained in classical and contemporary macro theory.
Both positivism and critical sociology were seen as overly deterministic in
their portrayal of the individual in society: The actor was depicted as either a
tabula rasa, internalizing the norms and values of society out of a desire for
group membership, or as a homo economicus, developing social, political,
and ideological characteristics as a result of his/her class membership. As a
result, these traditional approaches generated an overly passive and con-
strained view of the actor. In its determinism, macro sociology also tended to
be a monocausal gloss, failing to capture the complexity of the everyday
world. Some of the early critiques of macro sociology from the everyday life
perspective include Douglas (1970a), Filmer et al (1972), Lyman & Scott
(1970), Psathas (1968, 1973), Tiryakian (1962, 1965, 1968), Wilson (1970),
and Zimmerman & Wieder (1970).
Everyday life sociologists critiqued traditional sociology epistemologically
for its "absolutist" stance toward studying natural phenomena (Douglas
1970a, 1976; Douglas & Johnson 1977; Feyerabend 1972; Johnson 1975;

'For a fuller discussion of the various epistemological stances associated with symbolic
interactionism, ethnomethodology (with respect to ethnography), and existential sociology, see
Adler & Adler (1987).

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 EVERYDAY LIFE 219

Kauffman 1944; Manning 1973; Mehan & Wood 1975; Phillips 1974). They
rejected the premise of subject-object dualism: the belief that the subject
(knower) and the object (known) can be effectively separated through scienti-
fic principles. Procedures such as the objectification, detachment, control,
and manipulation of abstracted concepts and variables violate the integrity of
the phenomena under study (Cicourel 1964; Douglas 1970a, 1976; Schutz
1962, 1964).

Contextuality

Everyday life sociologists sought to respect this integrity by studying people

in their natural context: the everyday social world (Cicourel 1964; Denzin
1970; Douglas 1970a, 1976; Garfinkel 1967; J. Lofland 1971, 1976). This is
the most fundamental and central emphasis of everyday life sociology. Natur-
ally occurring interaction is the foundation of all understanding of society.
Describing and analyzing the character and implications of everyday life
interaction should thus serve as both the beginning and the end point of
sociology. This includes the perceptions, feelings, and meanings members
experience as well as the micro structure they create in the process.

Model of the Actor

Everyday life sociologists move from studying interaction and communica-

tion in two directions. First, they move inward, toward consciousness, deriv-
ing a model of the actor based on people's everyday life attitudes and
behavior. This includes the interactionist view of the self, the ethnomethodo-
logical view of cognitive structure, and the existential view of brute being. To
a degree, the relationship between consciousness and interaction is seen as
reflexive: people are shaped or socialized by interaction as well as in-
strumental in shaping the character of interaction.

Social Structure

Second, they employ a view of social structure and social order that derives
from interaction and is also characterized by a reciprocal relation to it. Social
structure, organization, and order do not exist independent of the people that
interact within them (Blumer 1969). Rather, they are endogenously con-
structed, or constituted, as people negotiate their way through interactions
(Garfinkel 1967; Heritage 1984; Maines 1977, 1982; Strauss 1978). The
rituals and institutions they thus create then influence the character of their
behavior through the expectations and micro social norms they yield (Goff-
man 1967). Interaction is thus both voluntaristic and structured (but not
completely determined) because of this reflexivity.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
220 ADLER, ADLER & FONTANA

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF EVERYDAY

LIFE SOCIOLOGY

The groundwork for the development of everyday life sociology was laid in
the 1920s and 1930s in two philosophical traditions that established an
ideological foundation and direction for micro sociological theory. At the
University of Chicago, Mead was forging a pragmatic social behaviorism that
would ultimately evolve into symbolic interactionism (Bulmer 1984, Rock
1979). In Germany, Husserl and Schutz were creating the emerging phe-
nomenological perspective (Wagner 1983). During this era, however, phe-
nomenology and social behaviorism were fairly disparate and isolated, with
little reciprocal or combined influence.
By the 1950s and 1960s this isolation began to abate. Schutz came to the
New School for Social Research where his influence spread among American
scholars. Blumer moved from the University of Chicago to the University of
California, Berkeley, and brought with him symbolic interactionism, his
revision of Mead's behaviorism. Shortly thereafter he was joined by Goff-
man.
Blumer's interactionism (1969) took shape in California, where he in-
corporated Mead's conceptions of the rationally voluntaristic actor, reflexiv-
ity, and role-taking, with an emphasis on the way actors construct their worlds
through subjective meanings and motivations. He therefore directed his stu-
dents to look toward shared meanings established in social interaction and to
explore various "meaning worlds" (J. Irwin, personal communication). His
work was a critical impetus to the everyday life perspective in sociology.
Goffman's new subfield, dramaturgy, was launched with The Presentation
of Self in Everyday Life (1959). Influenced by the works of Blumer, Burke,
and Durkheim, Goffman offered an analysis of the individual in society which
made the arena of interaction the locus of reality, of socialization, and of
societal regeneration. Goffman's work speaks to both roles (the nature of the
self) and rules (micro-social norms). Instead of role-taking for the purpose of
cooperatively aligning their actions with others, Goffman's actors intentional-
ly and manipulatively role-play for the purpose of managing others' im-
pressions of them. This occurs through the interaction rituals of everyday
life-rituals that shape the individual's inner self by externally imprinting
their rules on him or her at the same time they ensure the self-regulatory
character of society (Collins 1980, Fontana 1980, Lofland 1980, Vidich &
Lyman 1985).
Garfinkel broadened the everyday life perspective with his Studies in
Ethnomethodology (1967). Garfinkel's ethnomethodology addressed Parsons'
grand questions about social order and social structure, using Schutz's (1962,
1964, 1966, 1967) hermeneutical perspective of the actor as a vocabulary for

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 EVERYDAY LIFE 221

answering them. He directed practitioners to study the mundane routines of

everyday life through which social order is created and maintained. He drew
on Husserl (1970a, 1970b, 1973) to focus on the rationality and commonality
within people that underlies the situational contextuality of behavior.
Ethnomethodology thus differs from other everyday life sociology by being
less interested in how situations are defined and how subjective meanings
emerge.2 It focuses, rather, on how people negotiate and apply rules which
embody the social structure on an everyday level (Heritage 1984, Zimmerman
& Wieder 1970).
The 1960s and 1970s brought a surge of sociological interest in
phenomenology due to the English translation of Schutz's and Husserl's
work. Sociologists applied these philosophical ideas to an empirical plane and
evolved another everyday life perspective: phenomenological sociology.3
Early works in this tradition include Berger & Luckmann (1967), Douglas
(1970b), and Psathas (1973). The former tied phenomenology's emphasis on
consciousness as the locus of reality to a social constructionist view of
society. Douglas' edited volume contained seminal theoretical essays advanc-
ing, critiquing, and synthesizing the ethnomethodological, symbolic in-
teractionist, and phenomenological/existential perspectives. This work was
one of the first applications of the term "everyday life" to the new
sociologies.4 Psathas' book further discussed and empirically applied the
phenomenological sociology perspective.
Everyday life sociology thus had its birth during these decades. It emerged
in an atmosphere, especially in California, of eclectic synthesis and excite-
ment about the creation and synthesis of new ideas (Manning 1973). Every-
day life sociology was also nurtured and shaped by the surrounding back-
ground of California's secularism, heterogeneous beliefs, and pluralistic sub-
cultures, fostering an atmosphere of innovation, divergence, and freedom
(Vidich & Lyman 1985). From Berkeley, use of the everyday life perspective
spread to the other sociology departments of the University of California
system, where compatible thinkers were located. Unfortunately, this burgeon-
ing perspective was somewhat marred by the in-fighting and drift which
effectively prohibited "everyday life" from becoming the focal theme of these

2For a distinction between ethnomethodology and phenomenological sociology, see Rogers

(1983) and Zimmerman (1979). For the difference between ethnomethodology and symbolic
interactionism, see Gallant & Kleinman (1983) and Zimmerman & Wieder (1970). See Johnson
(1977) for a contrast between ethnomethodology and existential sociology. Finally, Per-
inbanayagam (1974) contrasts ethnomethodology and dramaturgy.
3Zaner (1970) has suggested that we should speak of phenomenologically derived sociology
rather than of phenomenological sociology, for the goals of phenomenology as a philosophy are
different from those of its sociological derivatives.
4Douglas first used the term everyday life phenomena in his (1967) work, where he dis-
tinguished between "everyday" and "anyday" phenomena.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
222 ADLER, ADLER & FONTANA

theorists. While a unified concept remained, no movement developed to press

for the identification and recognition of all this work under the everyday life
rubric. As a result, individual practitioners chose freely from among the
various theories, used and combined them as they saw fit, and made their own
decisions as to whether they wanted to affiliate themselves with the everyday
life label.
The late 1970s and 1980s brought a new generation of everyday life
sociologists. In this era, we have seen a continuation of both the unity and
diversity of the everyday life perspective. On the one hand, there has been a
growing awareness of the overarching everyday life label. More people
identified their work with everyday life sociology, and a number of books
appeared that addressed this theme. Morris (1977) produced a theoretical
treatise offering comparisons, contrasts, critiques, and historical discussions
of the various "creative," or everyday life perspectives. Mackie (1985) em-
ployed a phenomenological/existential perspective to analyze the drift of the
modem everyday world and the individual's alienated role within it. Text-
books were offered by Douglas and his colleagues (1980), Weigert (1981),
and Karp & Yoels (1986). A number of empirical works, drawn from the
various subfields, all explored the problematic and mundane features of
everyday life. Among these are L. Lofland (1973), Irwin (1977), Cohen &
Taylor (1976), and the collected works found in Brissett & Edgley (1975), J.
Lofland (1978), and Psathas (1973, 1979).
During this period the diversity of everyday life studies in sociology also
continued in a variety of directions. For this forum we have selected three to
explore more fully: existential sociology, the sociology of emotions, and
conversation analysis. These three arenas represent the major successes of
everyday life sociology that emerged from the churning dissension and con-
sensus of the 1960s and 1970s. We have chosen them because they represent
recent advances in, respectively, theoretical, substantive, and methdological
arenas of everyday life sociology.

EXISTENTIAL SOCIOLOGY

Existential sociology is located within a philosophical tradition that

to the ancient Greek culture. Early Greek existentialists include bot
machus, the sophist from Chalcedon who rejected Socrates' rational search
for an understanding of human beings within the cosmos, and the god
Dionysus, who represented the inner feelings and situated expressions of
human beings, unbridled by any rational restrictions. More recently and
directly, this tradition draws on the existential philosophy of Heidegger,
Camus, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty, the phenomenology of Husserl and
Schutz, and the hermeneutics of Dilthey (Fontana 1980).

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 EVERYDAY LIFE 223

Existential sociology is the most recent of the everyday life theoretical

perspectives. It shares with the others a common critique of the absolutist
sociologies and an orientation toward the same set of focal concerns and
beliefs. It goes beyond them in integrating subfields, combining them with a
more complex, contradictory, and multidimensional view of the actor and the
social world. Existential sociology also differs from other everyday life
theories in its view of human beings [Link] merely rational or symbolic, or
motivated by the desire to cooperate by interlinking actions. Instead, its
proponents believe that people have strong elements of emotionality and
irrationality, and that they often act on the basis of their feelings or moods.
People are simultaneously determined and free, affected by structural con-
straints while remaining mutable, changeable, and emergent (see Zurcher
1977, for a fuller discussion of the relationship between social change and the
existential self).
At the same time, existential sociologists view society as complex and
pluralistic, divided by power struggles between different groups (see Doug-
las, 1971, for an existential analysis of American social order). Torn by the
loyalties of their multiple memberships, people experience inner conflict.
Since most groups in the society have things they want to hide from other
groups, people present fronts to nonmembers. This creates two sets of reali-
ties about their activities: one presented to outsiders, the other reserved for
insiders. Drawing on the perspectives of Goffman (1959) and Machiavelli
(1532), existential sociologists also believe that people manage the im-
pressions they present to others. Researchers, then, must penetrate these
fronts to find out about human nature and human society (Adler & Adler
1987, Douglas 1976). The main theoretical works in this tradition include
Lyman & Scott (1970), Manning (1973), Douglas & Johnson (1977), and
Kotarba & Fontana (1984).
A number of empirical works illustrate the application and analytical value
of this perspective. These works share a focus on individuals' search for
meaning and self in an increasingly bureaucratized modern society. They also
emphasize the importance of individuals' core feelings and emotions in
guiding their perceptions, interpretations, and lives. The Nude Beach, by
Douglas & Rasmussen (1977), offered a multi-perspectival view of the
complexity of feelings, motivations, rationalizations, behaviors, fronts, and
micro and macro politics associated with public nudity and sexuality. In
Wheeling and Dealing, P. A. Adler (1985) portrayed the greed and narcis-
sism, rationality and irrationality, hedonism and materialism, secrecy and
exhibitionism, and the alienation and involvement associated with the fast life
of upper level drug dealers and smugglers. Kotarba's (1983) study, Chronic
Pain, described the anxiety and uncertainty faced by chronic sufferers as they
confront the futility of their search for solutions that will both alleviate their

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
224 ADLER, ADLER & FONTANA

pain and provide viable meanings for their experience. The Last Frontier, by
Fontana (1977), explored the emotional issues, loneliness, and existential
identity changes that underlie and render insignificant the rational meaning of
growing old. In P. Adler's (1981) book, Momentum, he analyzed the dynam-
ics and self-reinforcing excitement and depression caused by momentum-
infused individuals, groups, and masses. Last, a series of articles that address
the existential self in society are noteworthy: Altheide (1984) on the aggran-
dized nature of the media self; Ferraro & Johnson (1984) on the victimized
self of the organizational member, and Warren & Ponse (1977) on the
stigmatized, conflictful, and dramaturgical nature of the gay self.

THE SOCIOLOGY OF EMOTIONS

For many years the topic of emotions was ignored or addressed only tangen-
tially by sociologists. Recently, however, a newfound interest in the emotions
has spawned a spate of articles, books, sessions, and a section of the Amer-
ican Sociological Association devoted to this substantive arena. Most of this
interest has come from everyday life sociologists. Their perspective is well
suited to generate understanding about emotions because sentiments occur
within the interactional realm and its correlates: inward to the self and
outward to what Maines (1982) has called the mesostructure. The recent
literature on the sociology of emotions can be divided according to these two
main themes.

OrganisticlVoluntaristic
The first of these approaches focuses on the organic foundation of emotion.
Emotions are considered to exist apart from and prior to introspection and are
motored by instinct rather than by cognition. Social experiences trigger
emotions that derive from inner sources. This is, thus, a conception of
behavior which emphasizes individuals' inner-directed character. Its prac-
titioners build from this base to show how individuals' emotions ultimately
work upward to reconfirm, maintain, and change society and social structure
(Franks 1985, Hochschild 1983).
Using an organic perspective, Kemper (1978) has emphasized how the
power and/or status inherent in social relationships influence body chemistry.
Scheff (1979) proposed a "need theory" of emotional catharsis where in-
dividuals undergo arousal, climax, and the resolution of feeling states through
a biological reflex sequence. Hochschild's (1983) work on airline stewardess-
es has attempted to show that emotions are an organically based sixth sense
that serve, as Freud (1923) first suggested, a critical signal function. The
work of the existential sociologists (see Douglas 1977 and Johnson 1977 for
their programmatic statements on emotions), too, falls into this approach, as

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 EVERYDAY LIFE 225

they have ascribed a critical emotional dimension to the individual's inner

"brute being." For them, feelings are not only independent of rational thought
and values but ultimately dominate them.

Constructionist

The second everyday life approach to the study of emotions does not rule out a
biological component but focuses instead on how these physiological pro-
cesses are molded, structured, and given meaning. Emotions do not exist
independent of everyday life experiences, they argue; rather, these experi-
ences call out, modulate, shape, and ultimately create feelings. These are th
labeled, assessed, and managed through and by interaction. Structural and
cultural factors influence the feeling and interpretation of various emotions
due to the way they constrain possibilities and frame situations (Franks 1985,
Hochschild 1983).
Constructionist analysts include Goffman (1967), who discussed the link
between situations and institutions and proposed that emotions are determined
by the rules and micro acts that comprise situations. Hochschild (1979, 1983)
discussed the types of "feeling rules" which are structurally mandated onto
interactions and relationships through social guidelines. People then try to
make their feelings coincide with these rules by doing cognitive, bodily, or
expressive "emotions work." Emotion work can become commercialized
when it is co-opted by business, leading to a "commoditization of feeling."
Shott (1979) focused on role-taking emotions, suggesting that our empathy
for the feelings of others is a mechanism ensuring the maintenance of social
order and social control. Her discussion of the social processes common to
diverse emotional experiences also accentuated structurally derived display
rules. Gordon's (1981) approach to emotions focused on sentiments, learned
in enduring social relationships, whose differentiation, socialization, manage-
ment, and normative regulation are structurally dictated. Building on Hoch-
schild, Heiss (1981) discussed "emotion rules" which are shaped through
interaction by individuals' definitions of the situation, role-taking, self-
concepts, and self-presentations, leading to the formation of "emotion roles"
[i.e. Clark's discussion of sympathizers (1987)]. Averill (1980) proposed that
during states of heightened emotional arousal we experience passivity and
enact socially prescribed behavior. Zurcher (1982, 1985) and L. Lofland
(1985) have suggested that emotions are scripted by structural and in-
teractional contexts. Finally, Denzin (1984) has suggested that emotions are
shaped through the direct experience of practical activities in the processes of
the obdurate social world. In sum, understanding emotions enriches our
perspective on the actor's voluntarism and illustrates further one means by
which society motivates individuals to conform to its rules.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
226 ADLER, ADLER & FONTANA

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

Conversation analysis is a method of data gathering and analysis that is

informed by the theoretical beliefs of ethnomethodology. Like other
ethnomethodologists, conversation analysts have largely abandoned the ear-
lier ethnomethodological concern with studying the contextual particularity of
subjective meanings because endless indexicality refuted any intersubjectivity
and became "a phenomenologically inspired but sociologically aimless
empiricism" (Zimmerman 1979:384). Drawing on Parsons through Garfinkel
and Durkheim through Goffman (Heritage 1985), conversation analysts have
embraced a structural interest that makes them more closely aligned with and
acceptable to the interests of positivist mainstream sociologists (see Boden
1986; Collins 1981a,b).5
Conversation analysts study language because they regard "natural lan-
guage" as an everyday-life social system that is (a) external, existing prior to
and independently of any speaker, and (b) constraining, obligatory rather than
preferential in its framing. Natural language as a "mode of doing things"
(Austin 1961, Wittgenstein 1953) is thus reviewed as an interactional object,
a widespread, general, abstract system that is both immediate (situational) and
transcendent (transsituational). As such, it exhibits the objective properties of
a Durkheimian social fact (Zimmerman 1979).
Conversation analysts are concerned with both the competencies and the
structure underlying ordinary, everyday social activities. They therefore study
the production of natural language in situ, as it occurs spontaneously in the
everyday world. They regard conversation as both context-shaped and con-
text-renewing, influenced by and contributing to the context shaped by in-
teraction. Disdaining "premature" theory construction, they have focused on
tape recording minute, detailed "instances": the raw, primary data of actual
conversation (Heritage 1984, 1985, Schegloff 1980, Schegloff & Sacks
1973).
In their studies, conversation analysts began by concentrating on action
sequences of talk. An interest in turns-within-sequences developed out of the
early work of Sacks et al (1974) on the management of conversational
turn-taking. It was soon discovered that such structural analyses of talk served
as a guideline for interpersonal interaction and its analysis.
Further conversation analysis has focused on a number of topics. First,
Sacks, Schegloff, and others continued to investigate turn-taking, observing
the recurrence of the question-response format they termed the "adjacency
pair" (Schegloff 1968, Schegloff & Sacks 1973), "preference organization"

5Conversation analysis articles are increasingly beginning to appear in establishment journals,

such as Maynard & Zimmerman (1984), Maynard (1985), and Molotch & Boden (1985).

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 EVERYDAY LIFE 227

(the tendency of respondents to select the preferred alternative) (Davidson

1984, Pomerantz 1984, Sacks & Schegloff 1979, Schegloff et al 1977,
Wooton 1981), and "topic organization" (the continuation of conversation
around the same topic) (Button & Casey 1984, Maynard 1980).
Second, conversation analysts have examined the use of non- or quasi-
lexical speech objects such as laughter and head nods that show the listener's
continuing participation in the interaction (C. Goodwin 1980; Jefferson 1979,
1984; Schegloff 1982).
A third area of inquiry has been the integration of vocal and nonvocal
activities, such as gazing and body movements (C. Goodwin 1981; M.
Goodwin 1980; Heath 1982a, 1984).
Last, a number of excellent studies have examined interaction in in-
stitutional settings. These works build on the foundation of knowledge about
mundane conversations, seek variations from that structure, and attribute it to
the institutional context. As such, this body of work represents a more
contextual approach and moves away from pure empiricism toward the
beginnings of theoretical development. Institutional settings that have yielded
fruitful research include courts (Atkinson & Drew 1979, Dunstan 1980,
Maynard 1984, Pomerantz & Atkinson 1984), classrooms (Cuff & Hustler
1982, Mehan 1979), and medical encounters (Heath 1981, 1982b; West 1983,
1984b, 1985). Several studies have also addressed the impact of gender on
institutional interaction (French & French 1984, West 1984a).
While focused on naturally occurring, mundane communication observed
in situ, conversation analysis diverges sharply in its orientation from the
remaining corpus of everyday life sociology. It is more structural in interest
and formal in analysis. Conversation analysis is also more objectively
oriented, treating conversation as external to individuals, encouraging the
replication and testing of its findings, and addressing the context of verifica-
tion. In this way it departs from the customary hallmarks of everyday life
sociology-subjectivity and discovery. Yet at the same time as it diverges,
conversation analysis broadens the base of the everyday life perspective. Its
radically micro and radically empiricist approach translates the product of
interaction into a form that can be built upon by macro sociologists interested
in an objective micro base for grand structural analysis (Collins 1981a,
198 lb).

INFLUENCES ON MACRO THEORY

With the onslaught on macro theory by the early sociologies of

the schism between the macro and micro perspectives widened. Recently,
however, in response to the challenges presented by everyday life sociolo-

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
228 ADLER, ADLER & FONTANA

gists, certain macro theorists have begun to incorporate some of the micro
concepts discussed earlier. Prominent among these new "integrationists" have
been several important neo-Marxists in Europe (especially the French every-
day life sociologists, or sociologiests de la vie quotidienne), and in England
and America, a small group of neofunctionalists and eclectic, synthetic
thinkers. In attempting to bridge the micro-macro gap, these grand theorists
have begun to integrate the diametrically opposed positions of absolutist and
everyday life sociology (for a further discussion see Alexander et al 1987,
Collins 1981a, Knorr-Cetina & Cicourel 1981).
One of the most significant concepts adapted from everyday life sociology
is voluntarism and its related dimensions. These newer macro theorists, as
Parsons once did, are recognizing the importance of the individual, or active
agent, within the structure of society. While they view individuals as con-
strained by social structure, they of course recognize them as not determined
by it. Their portrayals of social life and ultimately society thus incorporate an
element of unpredictability (Alexander 1982, Bourdieu 1977, Collins 1975,
Giddens 1979, 1984, Touraine 1984), a feature lacking in the Parsonian
formulation. In addition, embedding voluntaristic action in structure leads to a
view of society as both context-shaped and context-forming. This draws on
the ethnomethodological concept that interactions are embedded in their
context of occurrence while at the same time they reflexively constitute these
contexts. It also uses the symbolic interactionist view that we live in a
negotiated order and cause our subjective perceptions to become real by
acting on their imagined consequences. Macro theorists have transformed this
into a dialectical relationship between action and order: society both creates
the historical, social, and cultural orientations that evoke behavior and at the
same time serves as an agent of its own self-production (Alexander 1982,
Bourdieu 1977, Giddens 1979, 1984, Lefebvre 1971, Touraine 1977).
Modem integrationist theorists also try to avoid totally objectivist
approaches by incorporating an element of subjectivism from everyday life
sociology. Rather than proposing models of generative mechanisms or deep
structures invisible to the acting agents, they incorporate a view of the actor
who understands and reflects upon his or her behavior as he/she is engaged in
it (Collins 1975, 1981a; Giddens 1979, 1984).
Another departure from traditional macro sociology is the formulation of
perspectives "propelled by a combination of theoretical and empirical argu-
ment" (Alexander 1982:30). Instead of merely looking to the idealistic logic
of reason and philosophy for explanatory hypotheses, these new theorists are
turning to the material reality of what Blumer (1969) has called the "obdurate"
empirical world. This integrates an awareness of the everyday life actor's
"natural attitude" (Schutz 1962) with the "theoretic stance" (Douglas 1970a)
employed by the social science analyst. In this way irrational and emotional

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 EVERYDAY LIFE 229

dimensions can be introduced into the overall perspective (Alexander 1982;

Bourdieu 1977, 1984; Collins 1975, 1981a; Giddens 1979, 1984; Lefebvre
1971; Touraine 1977, 1984).
Finally, these theorists have looked to everyday life interaction, searching
for a hidden unity beneath the surface. They have found everyday life to be
organized, even repetitive, to the point of being ritualistic. Goffman's analy-
sis of micro social norms, Garfinkel's discovery of the moral character
undergirding the routines of everyday life interaction, and the conversation
analytic view that natural language embodies the structural organization of
social reality have been especially influential. The organized character of
everyday life has been used in two ways: as a base for building an "aggrega-
tion" (Knorr-Cetina 1981) of micro interactions into a macro reality (Collins
1975, 1981b), and as a point of mediation between the individual and social
structure so that the feedback at the interactional level leads to their reciprocal
influence (Bourdieu 1977, Giddens 1984, Lefebvre 1971).
It is in these micro-macro syntheses that many of the most far-reaching
theoretical advances of everyday life sociology can be found.

CRITIQUES AND ASSESSMENTS

The critiques of everyday life sociology are legion. Research guided by this
perspective has been condemned as astructural or acontextual (Coser 1975,
Gouldner 1970, Horowitz 1971, Reynolds & Reynolds 1973, Zeitlen 1973),
incapable of addressing political factors (Gouldner 1970), ahistorical (Bern-
stein 1976, Gouldner 1970, Ropers 1973, Smith 1973, Zeitlen 1973), and
generally trivial in its focus and findings (Coser 1975, Gellner 1975), to name
the major ones.
While several of these critiques may have been accurate during the early
years of the field, there have been movements in the last decade to address
these criticisms. The area where the greatest advances have been made is
structural analysis. Some practitioners have addressed the topics of social
organization and social structure directly, theorizing about the macro im-
plications of micro models of interaction and communication (Hall 1986;
Maines 1977, 1982; Maynard & Wilson 1980; Schegloff 1987). Other every-
day life sociologists have studied specific organizations or industries and
written about their structural characteristics (Denzin 1977, Farberman 1975).
Last, research into the structure and content of organizational culture has been
fruitful (Fine 1984, Rohlen 1974, Schein 1983, Van Maanen 1973).
The political arena has also attracted increased attention from everyday life
sociologists. Some researchers have addressed organizational or govern-
mental power and politics (Clegg 1975; Hall 1972, 1985; Kinsey 1985; Klatch
1987; Molotch & Boden 1985), while others have focused on inter-

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
230 ADLER, ADLER & FONTANA

personal political dimensions (Fisher & Todd 1983, Kramarae et al 1984),

especially those related to gender politics (Thorne & Henley 1975, West
1979).
Everyday life sociology can still be considered largely ahistorical because
of its emphasis on the contemporary. Some research is historically embedded
though (Ball & Lilly 1982; Galliher & Walker 1977; Gusfield 1963, 1981),
and the aggregation of micro interactions may build to an understanding of
historicism (Collins 1981b).
Last, everyday life sociology may appear trivial to outsiders who are
unfamiliar with the theoretical issues it addresses. The strength of everyday
life sociology lies in generating sociological concepts or insights from
seemingly trivial settings, such as the notion of idioculture from Little League
baseball (Fine 1987), emotion work from airline stewardesses (Hochschild
1983), and lust and deceit from nude beaches (Douglas & Rasmussen 1977),
and from the minutiae of everyday life, such as telephone openings (Schegloff
1979), interruptions (West & Zimmerman 1983), and gazing (C. Goodwin
1980). Beyond this, the study of everyday life lays a foundation for un-
derstanding the basis of social order, social action, and the social construction
of reality (Collins 1981b).

FUTURE

Everyday life sociology is at a crossroads. It has a rich heritage of making

valuable theoretical, epistemological, and substantive contributions to social
science. It also has continuing potential to fill lacunae in empirical knowledge
and conceptual understanding of the everyday world. It has a secure foothold
in the discipline as an established alternative approach. Everyday life sociol-
ogy is routinely published by university presses, its own journals, and to a
lesser degree, by mainstream journals. Last, some of its subfields have lost
their cultlike isolation and become increasingly integrated into the discipline.
Yet several dangers lie ahead. First, the field must continue to advance new
perspectives on substantive, epistemological, and theoretical issues rather
than merely applying existing ones. Second, with the imminent retirement of
many of its founders, leadership must emerge from within its ranks. Third,
there is a near absence of research centers with the critical mass of faculty
necessary to train the next generation of everyday life sociologists. Without
this regenerative capacity, everyday life sociology may have a limited future
and faces a bankruptcy that threatens not only itself but the insight it brings to
the entire discipline.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Deirdre Boden, John Johnson, Ralph Turner, and an
anonymous reviewer for their help in preparing this manuscript.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 EVERYDAY LIFE 231

Literature Cited

Adler, P. 1981. Momentum. Beverly Hills, Cohen, S., Taylor, L. 1976. Escape Attempts.
Calif: Sage Harmondsworth, Eng: Penguin
Adler, P. A. 1985. Wheeling and Dealing. Collins, R. 1975. Conflict Sociology. New
New York: Columbia Univ. Press York: Academic Press
Adler, P. A., Adler, P. 1987. Membership Collins, R. 1980. Erving Goffman and the
Roles in Field Research. Beverly Hills, development of modem social theory. In
Calif: Sage The View from Goffman, ed. J. Ditton, pp.
Alexander, J. 1982. Theoretical Logic in 170-210. London: Macmillan
Sociology: Positivism, Presuppositions and Collins, R. 1981 a. On the micro-foundations
Current Controversies. Berkeley: Univ. of macro-sociology. Am. J. Sociol 86:984-
Calif. Press 1015
Alexander, J., Giesen, B., Munch, R., Collins, R. 1981b. Micro-translation as a
Smelser, N. 1987. The Micro-Macro Link. theory-building strategy. See Knorr-Cetina
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press & Cicourel 1981, pp. 81-108
Altheide, D. L. 1984. The media self. See Coser, L. A. 1975. Two methods in search of
Kotarba & Fontana 1984, pp. 177-95 a substance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 40:691-700
Atkinson, J. M., Drew, P. 1979. Order in Cuff, E. C., Hustler, D. 1982. Stories and
Court. London: Macmillan story-time in an infant classroom. Semiotica
Atkinson, J. M., Heritage, J. C., eds. 1984. 42:119-54
Structures of Social Action: Studies in Con- Davidson, J. A. 1984. Subsequent versions of
versation Analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge invitations, offers, requests, and proposals
Univ. Press dealing with potential or actual rejection.
Austin, J. L. 1961. Philosophical Papers. See Atkinson & Heritage, 1984, pp. 102-
London: Oxford Univ. Press 28
Averill, J. R. 1980. A constructivist view of Denzin, N. K. 1970. The Research Act. Chi-
emotion. In Emotion: Theory, Research, cago: Aldine
and Experience, ed. R. Plutchik, H. Keller- Denzin, N. K. 1977. Notes on the criminogen-
man. V. I. New York: Academic Press ic hypothesis: A case study of the American
Ball, R. A., Lilly, J. R. 1982. The menace of liquor industry. Am. Sociol. Rev. 42:905-20
margarine: The rise and fall of a social prob- Denzin, N. K. 1984. On Understanding Emo-
lem. Soc. Probl. 29:488-98 tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Berger, P., Luckmann, T. 1967. The Social Douglas, J. D. 1967. The Social Meanings of
Construction of Reality. New York: Suicide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.
Doubleday Press
Bernstein, R. J. 1976. The Restructuring of Douglas, J. D. 1970a. Understanding every-
Political Theory. New York: Harcourt day life. See Douglas 1970b, pp. 3-44
Brace & Jovanovich Douglas, J. D., ed. 1970b. Understanding
Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Everyday Life. Chicago: Aldine
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Douglas, J. D. 1971. American Social Order.
Boden, D. 1986. Talking with doctors: Con- New York: Free Press
versation analysis in action. Cont. Sociol. Douglas, J. D. 1976. Investigative Social Re-
15:715-18 search. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Douglas, J. D. 1977. Existential sociology.
Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. See Douglas & Johnson 1977, pp. 3-73
Press Douglas, J. D., Adler, P. A., Adler, P., Fon-
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. London: tana, A., Freeman, C., Kotarba, J. 1980.
Routledge & Kegan Paul Introduction to the Sociologies of Everyday
Brissett, D., Edgley, C., eds. 1975. Life as Life. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Theater. Chicago: Aldine Douglas, J. D., Johnson, J. M., eds. 1977.
Bulmer, M. 1984. The Chicago School of Existential Sociology. New York: Cam-
Sociology. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press bridge Univ. Press
Button, G., Casey, N. 1984. Generating topic: Douglas, J. D., Rasmussen, P. 1977. The
The use of topic initial elicitors. See Atkin- Nude Beach. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage
son & Heritage 1984, pp. 167-90 Dunstan, R. 1980. Contexts for coercion:
Cicourel, A. V. 1964. Method and Measure- Analyzing properties of courtroom ques-
ment in Sociology. New York: Free Press tions. Br. J. Law Society 6:61-77
Clark, C. 1987. Sympathy biography and Farberman, H. A. 1975. A criminogenic mar-
sympathy margin. Am. J. Sociol. In press ket structure: The automotive industry.
Clegg, S. 1975. Power, Rule and Domination: Sociol. Q. 16:438-57
A Critical and Empirical Understanding of Ferraro, K. J., Johnson, J. M. 1984. The victi-
Power in Sociological Theory and Everyday mized self: The case of battered women.
Life. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul See Kotarba & Fontana 1984, pp. 119-30

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
232 ADLER, ADLER & FONTANA

Feyerabend, P. F. 1972. Against Method. Gouldner, A. 1970. The Coming Crisis of

London: New Left Books Western Sociology. New York: Basic Books
Filmer, P., Phillipson, M., Silverman, D., Gusfield, J. 1963. Symbolic Crusade. Urbana,
Walsh, D. 1972. New Directions in Socio- Ill: Univ. Ill. Press
logical Theory. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Gusfield, J. 1981. The Culture of Public Prob-
Press lems. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Fine, G. A. 1984. Negotiated orders and orga- Hall, P. M. 1972. A symbolic interactionist
nizational cultures. Ann. Rev. Sociol. analysis of politics. Sociol. Inq. 42:35-75
10:239-62 Hall, P. M. 1985. Asymmetric relationships
Fine, G. A. 1987. With the Boys. Chicago: and processes of power. In Foundations of
Univ. Chicago Press Interpretive Sociology, ed. H. Farberman,
Fisher, S., Todd, A. D., eds. 1983. The Social R. Perinbanayagam, pp. 309-44. Green-
Organization of Doctor-Patient Com- wich, Conn: JAI Press
munication. Washington, DC: Cent. Appl. Hall, P. M. 1986. Interactionism and the study
Linguis. of social organization. Presented at Ann.
Fontana, A. 1977. The Last Frontier. Beverly Meet. Midwest Sociol. Society, Des
Hills, Calif: Sage Moines, Iowa
Fontana, A. 1980. Toward a complex uni- Heath, C. C. 1981. The opening sequence in
verse: Existential sociology. See Douglas et doctor-patient interaction. In Medical Work:
al 1980, pp. 155-81 Realities and Routines, ed. P. Atkinson, C.
Franks, D. 1985. Introduction to the special C. Heath, pp. 71-90. Farnborough, Eng:
issue on the sociology of emotions. Symb. Gower
Interact. 8:161-70 Heath, C. C. 1982a. The display of recipien-
French, J., French, P. 1984. Gender im- cy: An instance of a sequential relationship
balances in the primary classroom: An in- between speech and body movements.
teractional account. Educ. Res. 26:127-36 Semiotica 42:147-67
Freud, S. 1923. The Ego and the Id. London: Heath, C. C. 1982b. Preserving the consulta-
Hogarth tion: Medical record cards and professional
Gallant, M. J., Kleinman, S. 1983. Symbolic conduct. J. Sociol. Health Illness 4:56-74
interactionism vs. ethnomethodology. Heath, C. C. 1984. Talk and recipiency: Se-
Symb. Interact. 6:1-18 quential organization in speech and body
Galliher, J. F., Walker, A. 1977. The puzzle movement. See Atkinson & Heritage 1984,
of the social origins of The Marijuana Tax pp. 247-65
Act of 1937. Soc. Probl. 24:267-76 Heiss, J. 1981. The Social Psychology of In-
Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethod- teraction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
ology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Hall
Gellner, E. 1975. Ethnomethodology: The re- Heritage, J. C. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethno-
enchantment industry of the California way methodology. Cambridge, Eng: Polity
of subjectivity. Phil. Soc. Sci. 5:431-50 Heritage, J. C. 1985. Recent developments in
Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social conversation analysis. Sociolinguistics
Theory: Action, Structure and Construction XV: 1-18
in Social Analysis. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Hochschild, A. R. 1979. Emotion work, feel-
Press ing rules and social structure. Am. J. Sociol.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Soci- 85:551-75
ety. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Hochschild, A. R. 1983. The Managed Heart.
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday An- Horowitz, I. L. 1971. Review of Howard S.
chor Becker's sociological work: Methods and
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual. New substance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 36:527-28
York: Doubleday Anchor Husserl, E. 1970a. Logical Investigations.
Goodwin, C. 1980. Restarts, pauses and the New York: Humanities Press
achievement of mutual gaze at turn begin- Husserl, E. 1970b. The Crisis of European
ning. Sociol. Inq. 50:272-302 Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenolo-
Goodwin, C. 1981. Conversational Organiza- gy: An Introduction to Phenomenological
tion: Interaction between Speakers and Philosophy. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern
Hearers. New York: Academic Press Univ. Press
Goodwin, M. H. 1980. Some aspects of pro- Husserl, E. 1973. Experience and Judgment.
cesses of mutual monitoring implicated in Evanston, Ill: Northwestern Univ. Press
the production of description sequences. Irwin, J. 1977. Scenes. Beverly Hills, Calif:
Sociol. Inq. 50:303-17 Sage
Gordon, S. L. 1981. The sociology of senti- Jefferson, G. 1979. A technique for inviting
ments and emotions. In Social Psychology, laughter and its subsequent acceptance/
ed. M. Rosenberg, R. H. Turner, pp. 562- declination. See Psathas 1979, pp. 79-96
92. New York: Basic Books Jefferson, G. 1984. On stepwise transition

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 EVERYDAY LIFE 233

from talk about a trouble to inappropriately Manning, P. K. 1973. Existential sociology.

next-positioned matters. See Atkinson & Sociol. Q. 14:200-25
Heritage 1984, pp. 1919-222 Maynard, D. W. 1980. Placement of topic
Johnson, J. M. 1975. Doing Field Research. changes in conversation. Semiotica 30:263-
New York: Free Press 290
Johnson, J. M. 1977. Ethnomethodology and Maynard, D. W. 1984. Inside Plea Bargain-
existential sociology. See Douglas & John- ing. New York: Plenum
son 1977, pp. 153-73 Maynard, D. W. 1985. Social conflict among
Karp, D., Yoels, W. 1986. Sociology and children. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50:207-23
Everyday Life. Itasca, Ill: Peacock Maynard, D. W., Wilson, T. P. 1980. On the
Kauffman, F. 1944. Methodology of the Social reification of social structure. In Current
Sciences. New York: Humanities Perspectives in Social Theory, ed. S. G.
Kemper, T. D. 1978. A Social Interactional McNall, G. N. Howe, 1:287-322. Green-
Theory of Emotions. New York: Wiley wich, Conn.: JAI Press
Kinsey, B. 1985. Congressional staff: The Maynard, D. W., Zimmerman, D. H. 1984.
cultivation and maintenance of personal net- Topical talk, ritual and the social organiza-
works in an insecure work environment. tion of relationships. Soc. Psych. Q. 47:
Urban Life 13:395-422 301-16
Klatch, R. 1987. Women of the New Right. Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons. Cam-
Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press bridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press
Knorr-Cetina, K. 1981. The micro- Mehan, H., Wood, H. 1975. The Reality of
sociological challenge of macro-sociology: Ethnomethodology. New York: Wiley
Towards a reconstruction of social theory Molotch, H. L., Boden, D. 1985. Talking
and methodology. See Knorr-Cetina & social structure: Discourse, domination, and
Cicourel 1981, pp. 1-47 the Watergate hearings. Am. Sociol. Rev.
Knorr-Cetina K., Cicourel, A. eds. 1981. 50:273-88
Advances in Social Theory and Methodol- Morris, M. B. 1977. An Excursus into Crea-
ogy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul tive Sociology. New York: Columbia Univ.
Kotarba, J. A. 1983. Chronic Pain. Beverly Press
Hills, Calif: Sage Perinbanayagam, R. 1974. The definition of
Kotarba, J. A., Fontana, A., eds, 1984. The the situation and an analysis of the
Existential Self in Society. Chicago: Univ. ethnomethodological and dramaturgical
Chicago Press view. Sociol. Q. 15:521-42
Kramarae, C., Schulz, M., O'Barr, W., eds., Phillips, D. 1974. Epistemology and the
1984. Language and Power. Beverly Hills, sociology of knowledge. Theory and Soci-
Calif: Sage ety 1:59-88
Lefebvre, H. 1971. Everyday Life in the Mod- Pomerantz, A. M. 1984. Pursuing a response.
ern World. London: Penguin See Atkinson & Heritage 1984, pp. 152-63
Lofland, J. 1971. Analyzing Social Settings. Pomerantz, A. M., Atkinson, J. M. 1984.
Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis
Lofland, J. 1976. Doing Social Life. New and the study of courtroom instruction. In
York: Wiley Topics in Psychology and Law, ed. D. J.
Lofland, J., ed., 1978. Interaction in Every- Muller, D. E. Blackman, A. J. Chapman,
day Life. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage pp. 283-94. Chichester, Eng: Wiley
Lofland, J. 1980. Early Goffman: Style, struc- Psathas, G. 1968. Ethnomethods and pheno-
ture, substance, soul. In The View from menology. Soc. Res. 35:500-20
Goffman, ed. J. Ditton pp. 24-51. London: Psathas, G., ed. 1973. Phenomenological
Macmillan Sociology. New York: Wiley
Lofland, L. H. 1973. A World of Strangers. Psathas, G., ed. 1979. Everyday Language:
New York: Basic Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York:
Lofland, L. H. 1985. The social shaping of Irvington Press
emotion: The case of grief. Symb. Interact. Reynolds, L., Reynolds, J. 1973. Interaction-
8: 171-90 ism, complicity and the astructural bias.
Lyman, S. M., Scott, M. B. 1970. A Sociol- Catalyst 7:76-85
ogy of the Absurd. New York: Appleton Rock, P. 1979. The Making of Symbolic In-
Machiavelli, N. [1532] 1970. The Prince. teractionism. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Lit-
New York: Wash. Square tlefield
Mackie, F. 1985. The Status of Everyday Life. Rogers, M. F. 1983. Sociology, Ethnomethod-
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul ology and Experience. New York: Cam-
Maines, D. R. 1977. Social organization and bridge Univ. Press
social structure in symbolic interactionist Rohlen, T. 1974. For Harmony and Strength:
thought. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 3:75-95 Japanese White-Collar Organization in An-
Maines, D. R. 1982. In search of mesostruc- thropological Perspective. Berkeley: Univ.
ture. Urban Life 11:267-79 Calif. Press

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
234 ADLER, ADLER & FONTANA

Ropers, R. 1973. Mead, Marx and social psy- Thorne, B., Henley, N. eds. 1975. Language
chology. Catalyst 7:42-61 and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Row-
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. 1979. Two prefer- ley, Mass: Newbury House
ences in the organization of reference in Tiryakian, E. 1962. Existentialism and
conversation and their interaction. See Sociologism. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Pren-
Psathas 1979, pp. 15-21 tice-Hall
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. Tiryakian, E. 1965. Existential phenomenolo-
1974. A simplest systematics for the organ- gy and sociology. Am. Sociol. Rev. 30:647-
ization of turn-taking for conversation. Lan- 88
guage 50:696-735 Tiryakian, E. 1968. The existential self and
Scheff, T. 1979. Catharsis in Healing, Ritual the person. In The Self in Social Interaction,
and Drama. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press ed. K. J. Gergen, C. Gordon, pp. 75-86.
Schegloff, E. A. 1968. Sequencing in con- New York: Wiley
versational openings. Am. Anthropol. 70: Touraine, A. 1977. The Self-Production of
1075-95 Society. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Schegloff, E. A. 1979. Identification and Touraine, A. 1984. Le Retour de l'Acteur:
recognition in telephone openings. See Essai de Sociologie. Paris: Fayard
Psathas 1979, pp. 23-78 Van Maanen, J. 1973. Observations on the
Schegloff, E. A. 1980. Preliminaries to pre- making of policemen Hum. Organ. 32:407-
liminaries: Can I ask you a question? Sociol. 18
Inq. 50:104-52 Vidich, A., Lyman, S. M. 1985. American
Schegloff, E. A. 1982. Discourse as an in- Sociology. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press
teractional achievement: Some uses of "uh- Wagner, H. 1983. Alfred Schutz: An In-
huh" and other things that come between tellectual Biography. Chicago: Univ. Chi-
sentences. Georgetown Univ. Roundtable cago Press
on Language and Linguistics, pp. 71-93. Warren, C. A. B., Ponse, B. 1977. The ex-
Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press istential self in the gay world. See Douglas
Schegloff, E. A. 1987. Between macro and & Johnson, pp. 273-89
micro: Contexts and other connections. See Weigert, A. J. 1981. Sociology of Everyday
Alexander et al 1987. In press Life. New York: Longman
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. West, C. 1979. Against our will: Male in-
1977. The preference for self-correction in terruptions of females in cross-sex con-
the organization of repair in conversation. versation. In Language, Sex and Gender,
Language 53:361-82 M. K. Slater, L. L. Adler, pp. 81-97. New
Schegloff, E. A., Sacks, H. 1973. Opening up York: Ann. New York Acad. Sci.
closings. Semiotica 7:289-327 West, C. 1983. Ask me no questions . . . an
Schein, E. 1983. The role of the founder in analysis of queries and replies in physician-
creating organizational culture. Organ. patient dialogues. See Fisher & Todd 1983,
Dynam. 12:5-23 pp. 75-106
Schutz, A. 1962. Collected Papers I: The West, C. 1984a. When the doctor is a "lady":
Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Mar- Power, status, and gender in physician-
tinus Nijhoff patient encounters. Symb. Interact. 7:87-
Schutz, A. 1964. Collected Papers 11: Studies 106
in Social Theory. The Hague: Martinus Nij- West, C. 1984b. Medical misfires: Mis-
hoff hearings, misgivings and misunderstandings
Schutz, A. 1966. Collected Papers III: Studies in physician-patient dialogues. Discourse
in Phenomenological Philosophy. The Processes 7:107-34
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff West, C. 1985. Routine Complications.
Schutz, A. 1967. The Phenomenology of the Bloomington, Ind: Indiana Univ. Press
Social World. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern West, C., Zimmerman, D. H. 1983. Small
Univ. Press insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex
Shott, S. 1979. Emotion and social life: A conversations between unacquainted per-
symbolic interactionist analysis. Am. J. sons. In Language, Gender and Society, ed.
Sociol. 81:1265-86 B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, N. Henley, pp.
Smith, D. L. 1973. Symbolic interactionism: 102-17. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House
Definitions of the situation from H. Becker Wilson, T. P. 1970. Normative and in-
and J. Lofland. Catalyst 7:62-75 terpretive paradigms in sociology. See
Smith, R. W. 1984. An existential view of Douglas 1970, pp. 57-79
organizations: Is the member condemned to Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical In-
be free? See Kotarba & Fontana 1984, pp. vestigations. London: Basil Blackwell.
100-18 Wooton, A. 1981. The management of grant-
Strauss, A. 1978. Negotiations. San Francis- ings and rejections by parents in request
co: Jossey-Bass sequences. Semiotica 37:59-89

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 EVERYDAY LIFE 235

Zaner, R. 1970. The Way of Phenomenology. order: Comment on Denzin. See Douglas
New York: Pegasus 1970, pp. 285-98
Zeitlen, I. M. 1973. Rethinking Sociology. Zurcher, L. A. 1977. The Mutable Self. Bev-
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts erly Hills, Calif: Sage
Zimmerman, D. W. 1979. Ethnomethodolo- Zurcher, L. A. 1982. The staging of emotions:
gy. In Theoretical Perspectives in Sociolo- A dramaturgical analysis. Symb. Interact.
gy, ed. S. G. McNall, pp. 381-96. New 5:1-22
York: St. Martins Zurcher, L. A. 1985. The war game: Organi-
Zimmerman, D. W., Wieder, D. L. 1970. zational scripting and the expression of
Ethnomethodology and the problem of emotion. Symb. Interact. 8:191-206

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Thu, 09 Jun 2022 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]