Jacek Maria Kurczewski

By levelling its criticism it traditional sociology ethnomethodology focuses directly or indirectly on the role of norms in description and explanation of human behaviour. Although sociologists respond to this criticism the way in which they accommodate it is rather superficial. That is why this article is written in the form of a dialogue. One protagonist quotes selected tenets of ethnomethodology, phrasing them as he would be apt to in the programmatic phase of the development of that discipline, while the other offers corrections and undertakes to analyse and evaluate the views that he hears. In the course of their discussion it becomes clear that, according to ethnomethodology, norms out of context have no bearing on behaviour which is always occasioned by particular circumstances hic et nunc. Yet, it would not be true to say that remembrance of norms never affects decisions responsible for individual behaviour, any more than it would be to say that ethnomethodology can dispense with objective language as allegedly incompatible with the very nature of social life. Additionally, the dichotomy ‘indexical versus objective language’ distorts the continuum of the contextuality of expressions beyond recognition. Thus we are left with the old problem, familiar to both practitioners and theorists of normative disciplines, the problem of interpretation, its ramifications are neglected by ethnometodologists. Application of a concrete norm to a concrete situation presupposes an interpretation of the situation, and in this sense, it is true that knowledge of norms is not sufficient for a description of the behaviour by a man who follows them. But a norm can play a role in the interpretation of a situation too. Besides, in their attempt to get rid of surface norms, ethnomethodologists create latent or interpretative norms whose ontological status is rather doubtful. Though they are reconstructed they need not be Identified with deep-structure norms which in fact have influence on human behaviour. In case when the two might conflict the ethnometodologists would be hard put to know what to say. But without precluding any answer to this query, it must be stressed that the interpretative procedures, as they have been reconstructed from ethnomethodological analyses, are vague and underdeveloped which is probably due to this vagueness of criteria with which ethnomethodology defines the object of its interests.

The article presents findings derived from questionnaires administrated to 150 randomly selected inhabitants of Warsaw in November and early December of 1981. They were asked about their preferences concerning different rules of distributing basic supplies in time of crisis. The authors begin by saying that controlled distribution corresponds to a principle that is considered fundamental in the socialist country, namely the principle of redistribution. It determines all sorts of social exchange that may be governed elsewhere by the principle of reciprocity or by market. Deteriorating Polish economy made it necessary after the Agreements of 198O and 1981 to introduce rationing of meat and fat initially and various other commodities later. This rationing is called “universal” by the authors to distinguish it from “situational” rationing that had existed earlier whenever particular sorts of commodities were in short supply and only first in line were served or whenever particular groups of people were given special entitlements to buy things that were not generally available. The authors point out that a complete collapse of the economic system, whether now in Poland or in any other case, leads to a wide acceptance of different forms of rationing. It is not expected that rationing may help to better the general level of individual needs; it is hoped only that it may ensure more equitable distribution of those goods that are supplied in minimum quantities. Just distribution stands in this case for limited egalitarianism which primarily provides for equal distribution but makes allowances for different levels of needs and endorses exclusion of certain categories of people from the distribution system. In case of grave impoverishment the rules of charity ad mutual help are called upon, or the respondents express their trust in the existence of widespread benevolent attitudes in society.