THE TRUTH ABOUT DOMINATION: AN ETHNOMETHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DOMINANCE AS AN ESSENTIAL TRAIT

THE TRUTH ABOUT DOMINATION: AN ETHNOMETHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO DOMINANCE AS AN ESSENTIAL TRAIT
written for Dr. Charles Gattone: Seminar in contemporary theory

This paper looks at the contruction of dominance within the (seemingly) divergent cultures of sociology sub-disciplinarity and race-group positioning. Anecdotal data is used to experiment with a methodological approach in which visceral aspects of social interactions are taken into account. The negotiation of dominant-status, either for a particular ethnic group or sub-field of sociology, becomes both a study object as well as a project of the analysis.


ABSTRACT

Most sociologists would agree that one of the major strengths of sociology comes from its being a composite field, i.e. a field in which divergent perspectives, paradigms, and substantive areas are brought together. Although ethnomethodology, along other constructivist approaches to sociology, are often labeled as marginal within the field, such labeling has negative consequences for the added value of being a composite field. This is because while constructivist approaches simply add a new dimension to essentialist assessments of social phenomena, essentialism reduces constructivism to redundancy when given dominion over it. Most basically this is due to the fact that when constructivists view the social world as one of human apprehension, they are de facto bound to accounting in one way or the other for anything that essentialists can imagine. On the other hand, essentialists have no problem denying the issue of human apprehension in conceptualizing the existence of historical/material 'facts.' As such it makes more sense to raise constructivist approaches like ethnomethodology to primacy, not because more sociologists focus on them or because they attract more funding or result in more salient results, but simply because they account for a superset of social phenomena that positivists/objectivist refuse to acknowledge, at least to a sufficient extent.

The preceding argument is part of the goal of this paper; the larger project of which is to examine how the status of dominance is constructed in language and what results its conceptual application has for framing social fields. Just as we think of the (plural) field of sociology in terms of dominant approaches (positivism, macro-historical comparison, etc.) and more marginal ones (ethnomethodology, critical studies, other constructivist approaches), we apply the same logic to the (plural) social world we live in and study. Although we tout the logic of context-specificity for interpreting social phenomena, rarely do we extend that logic to the meta-level, instead preserving that meta-level as the context-free space from which to talk about the (essential) dominance and marginality of the various other contexts that remain in sight from that position. In this paper I am arguing for a radical ethnomethodological approach to the production of language/knowledge when doing sociology in which the social construction of knowledge is our first priority as sociologists no matter what other methods we employ in doing so. Rather than (or in addition to) engaging in reflexivity, in which the reference points of knowledge are treated as real for the sake of study, we should focus on actively engaging reality in its constructedness. Instead of merely talking about it being constructed, and seeking to describe the processes by which it is constructed, we should recognize our own position in co-constructing it as well, and take responsibility as active agents in that construction process, not just observers/explainers of it. This means taking our language acts seriously, whether they are published, written, or spoken. Instead of downplaying such language acts as (relatively) insignificant by comparison to other actors in the (larger) social field, we should take the view that "it doesn't get any bigger than this" and start working at the micro/local level the best we can. It may help to recall Foucault's emphasis on the power of truth/knowledge: power
lies not so much in the spreading of knowledge but in infusing it with truth. The universal, or at least trans-contextual, imagery built-in to the concept of truth is what lets it extend from the locality in which it is deployed to others.

In examining the labels, 'dominant/subordinate,' along with the logics that usually underwrite them, for this paper, I will include disjunct examples from various discourses. The example of the attribution of marginal status to ethnomethodology within a plural vision of sociology has already been mentioned but we may also think of the perilous position often feared for the legitimacy of anti-racism and counter-discrimination measures if oppressed groups were to be rendered 'dominant' in public discourses. I will show how this is the product of a persisting view that the sole purpose of equality is to legitimate exploitation and domination. Likewise I will explore how alternative conceptualizations of dominance/centrality and subordination/marginality could potentially aid struggles to reduce inequality if freed from the implicit trap in which equality is always linked to competition and the hunting-logic of 'fair game.' In doing so a working demonstration of applied ethnomethodology will be given and it is hoped that the potential sociological and social value of such constructivist approaches to the goals of positivism/progress will be realized, even though the logic of constructivism exceeds positivism's  limitations.