Re: accounts and identity
Stanford M. Lyman (slyman@gate.net)
Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:27:43 -0500
At 05:30 PM 3/6/96 -0600, you wrote:
> On 6 March, Jon Epstein wrote:
>
> "... behaviors which require accounts are generally those behaviors
>which are considered "deviant." Presumably one does not have to account
>for "normal" behavior."
>
> I'm afraid I don't know what readings people are referring to, but
>would like to comment on the above remark.
> First, decisions need to be made about how the words 'deviant' and
>'normal' are to be defined. (I'm stating the obvious, I know, but please
>bear with me.) For example, Hargreaves et al. (1975) draw attention to
>whether deviance is defined as rule breaking (e.g. doing something wrong,
>which may be a view held and enforced by a minority), or in quantitave
>terms (i.e. a case which is different from the majority of cases). 'Normal'
>will have to be defined in relation to what kind of definition one decides
>on for 'deviance'.
> Second (and for me this is the more interesting point) in my own
>study, I find myself and my participants trying to account for 'normal'
>behaviour - 'normal' meaning both 'usual' and 'what is considered
>appropriate'. I am researching the experiences of British secondary school
>supply (substitute) teachers. Some experiences and behaviours are unique to
>supply teaching. However, what is intriguing is the degree to which supply
>teachers behave like the 'normal' teachers they compare themselves with.
>Many of the contextual factors in supply teaching differ from those in the
>regular, timetabled teaching; it is interesting to see how these supply
>teachers describe and accept as normal what are extraordinary circumstances
>(as far as the regular staff are concerned).
> Getting accounts of what is normal, what is meant by normal, and
>why certain things are regarded as normal is every bit as interesting as
>investigating the deviant.
>
>Hargreaves, D., Hester, S., and Mellor, F. (1975) Deviance in classrooms,
>RKP, London
>
>Alexander
>
>******************************************************************************
>Alexander Massey, <alexander.massey@edstud.ox.ac.uk>
>DPhil student, Department of Educational Studies, Oxford University, 15
>Norham Gardens, Oxford OX2 6PY, England
>
>"What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a
>completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas."
>
>
The call for an account for what appears to the receiver of that call as
normal or usual conduct is a sign that the caller has a different view of
it, or that the caller is "having some fun", or that the caller is being
"mean-spirited", or that the caller is engaged in a Garfinkelian experiment.
Stanford M. Lyman