---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 95 05:27 -0400
From: BTORODE who-is-at tcd.ie
To: Multiple recipients of ETHNO <ETHNO who-is-at cios.llc.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: multi-vocality and competence in narrative
Date sent: 30-DEC-1995 10:26:52
Here are some thoughts on the above. I should be interested to learn
of other discussions that I may have missed.
*
An attempt to locate 'voices' in ordinary speech, and in
written texts, was made by SIlverman and myself in the
early 1980s. Our method drew on the phenomenological
social philosophy of Alfred Schutz; on French theorists
including Althusser and Derrida; on sociolinguists such
as Basil Bernstein; and on the ethnomethodology of Harvey
Sacks.
Silverman, D. and B. Torode (1980), The Material
Word: some theories of language and its limits,
Routledge, London.
Our method was taken up in the context of doctor-patient
consultation, seen as a site of conflict between the
'voices' of medicine and of the life-world by
Mishler, E. (1984), The Discourse of Medicine:
dialectics of medical intervention, Ablex, USA.
Mishler further broadened the theoretical basis for
'voices', finally settling upon Habermas' distinction
between _communicative_ (intersubjective) rationality as
the voice of the life world, and _technical_ (means/ends)
rationality as the voice of science, including medicine.
According to Habermas, the modern world is characterised
by a "colonisation" of the life-world by science.
At this stage the concept was being used in a binary way,
i.e. 'voices' always came in pairs; and also in a
'macro' or 'top-down' manner, i.e. Habermas' overview of
the state of the world, you knew what to expect in any
individual face-to-face encounter.
Subsequently Silverman 'bent' the concept a little: he
showed 'role-reversals' whereby doctor used 'life-world'
voice and parents of child patients worked up a medical
'voice', in a situation where parents sought surgical
intervention against the doctor's advice.
Silverman, D. (1987), Communication and Medical
Practice, Sage, London.
However this ironic twist did not shift the underlying
reductionism of the concept as it was then being used.
For a concise critique of this whole thread, see
Maynard, D. W. (1991), 'Interaction and Asymmetry in
Clinical Discourse', American Journal of Sociology,
vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 448-95.
*
The concept has not been pursued since, to my knowledge,
in or around ethnomethodological sociology. I would say
it has been superceded by the concept of 'versions',
popularised in the work of Jonathan Potter and
colleagues:
Potter, J. and M. Wetherell (1987), Discourse and
Social Psychology, Sage, London.
Potter describes New Zealand interviewees, discussing
Samoan immigrants, as articulating rival 'versions' of
their views, e.g. "<a> err: (1.0) <b> They're welcome
here if they will work, but <c> if they are just going to
sponge off our welfare system <d> they should go home".
[Reconstruction, from memory]. In the _Material Word_ we
would probably have described these as two rival voices:
<b> would be a 'liberal' voice, <c> + <d> would be a
'racist' voice. Whereas the 'voices' analysis, as noted
above, led to a macro and reductionist interpretation,
the 'versions' analysis promises to give a _situated_
account.
A macro and reductionist interpretation of 'racist'
discourse of just the above kind is represented by the
continuing work of Teun van Dijk, in many books
including:
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1991), Racism and the Press:
criticial studies in racism and migration,
Routledge, UK/USA.
*
Potter & Wetherell tie it in with work by Pomerantz on
'Dispreferred' second pair parts in Adjacency Pairs.
Assuming a highly educated liberal interviewer,
interviewees seeking to express negative views regarding
immigrants can assume that what they have to say is not
what the interviewer would wish to hear. Hence the
interviewee's response is a complex construction
involving at least 4 components: <a> pause, <b>
appreciation, and <c> excuse prior to delivery of <d> the
negative view. See:
Pomerantz, Anita (1984), 'Agreeing and Disagreeing
with Assessments: some features of
preferred/dispreferred turn shapes', in Atkinson, J.
M. and J. Heritage (ed.), Structures of Social
Action: studies in conversation analysis,
University Press, Cambridge.
However the P&W 'versions' concept retains a strongly
binary structure which seemingly derives from the
"self/other" distinction which is basic to social
psychology (known to sociologists through the work of
Erving Goffman). An related account of versions,
appeared earlier, in the work of Gilbert & Mulkay:
Gilbert, N. and M. Mulkay (1984), Opening Pandora's
Box, University Press, Cambridge.
G&M reported that, in interviews, natural scientists
described themselves as 'empiricists' but described
others [i.e. rival scientists as 'indexical'] (swayed by
contingent problems). This analysis draws attention to
the distinction made by everyday speakers between
indexicality and objectivity, a philosophical theme for
over 2000 years, which is reviewed by Garfinkel and Sacks
in their only joint work:
Garfinkel, H and H. Sacks (1970), 'On Formal
Structures of Practical Action', in McKinney, S. and
E. Tiryakian (ed.), Theoretical Sociology,
Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
It appears to me to be highly fruitful to pursue the
study of versions in the light of this distinction.
*
An important discussion of 'versions' which has
recently been republished is:
Cuff, E.C. (1993), Problem of Versions in everyday
situations, Vol. 2 of Studies in Ethnomethodology
and Conversation Analysis, University Press of
America, Washington, D.C.
This has been in circulation as a "Working Paper"
produced by the University of Manchester, since about
1980, and is so cited by Potter & Wetherell. Cuff
attempts a description of versions which avoids
reductionism or binarism, and strives to avoid giving an
account which improves upon that of the members who
originated it. His paper vigorously debates with rival
writers (notably brief early work by Dorothy Smith and
Melvyn Pollner) of the 1970s. It is a pity that the 1993
edition contains no mention, in an editorial introduction
or by other means, of the fact of the prior circulation,
of substantial work in the 1980s by the writers which it
discusses, of subsequent work by Cuff himself, or of
work such as that mentioned above sought to develop his
1980 insights.
____________________________
\ ______________________ \
Brian Torode \ \ _______________ \ \
Sociology \ \ \ ________ \ \ \
Trinity College \ \ \ \ ____ \ \ \ \
Dublin, 2 \ \ \ \_____\ \ \ \ \
Ireland \ \ \___________\ \ \ \
\ \__________________\ \ \
btorode who-is-at tcd.ie \________________________\ \
___________________________________________________________________________\