Sociological theories of everyday life as a tool for researching silence practices

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The article reveals heuristic possibilities and analyzes the results of applying the conceptual apparatus of the sociology of everyday life to understanding the practices of silence. Sociological theories of everyday life are presented in the article by the concepts of social phenomenology of A. Schutz, dramaturgy and frame analysis of E. Goffman and an ethnomethodological approach, which includes both the ethnomethodology of H. Garfinkel, and conversation analysis, the founders of which are considered to be H. Sacks and E. Schegloff. Thus, the subject of the article is a wide range of concepts united by a qualitative research paradigm. This choice is justified by the high adaptability of this set of theories to the analysis of observed and «sounding» silence as a real phenomenon given us in the direct human experience. Used in everyday social life, silence is included in the processes of the everyday world thus becoming a part of the (re)production mechanism at the micro level social order.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Anastasiya K. Spirkina

Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS

Author for correspondence.
Email: spirkina.ak@yandex.ru

Senior Assistant

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Bozkov O. B. (2014) Everyday life and practices: towards clarification of the sociological sense of notions. Sociologicheskij zhurnal [Sociological journal]. No. 4: 133–154. (In Russ.)
  2. Burak T. V. (2010) In search of everyday life: a review of new concepts in sociology. Sociology: Scientific and theoretical journal [Sociologija: Nauchno-teoreticheskij zhurnal]. No. 2: 105–115. (In Russ.)
  3. Garfinkel H. (2002) Study of the habitual foundations of everyday actions. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Russian Sociological Review]. Vol. 8. No. 1: 41–69. (In Russ.)
  4. Garfinkel H. (2003) What is ethnomethodology? Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Russian Sociological Review]. Vol. 3. No. 4: 3–25. (In Russ.)
  5. Garfinkel H. (2009) A conception of, and experiments with, ”trust” as a condition of stable concerted actions. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Russian Sociological Review]. Vol. 8. No. 1: 10–51. (In Russ.)
  6. Goffman E. (2000) The presentation of Self in everyday life. Moscow: Kanon-press-C, Kuchkovo pole (In Russ.)
  7. Goffman E. (2003) Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Moscow: IS RAN. (In Russ.)
  8. Goffman E. (2009) Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behavior. Moscow: Smysl. (In Russ.)
  9. Golofast V. B. (2002) Conceptualizing Everyday Life. Interakciya. Intervyu. Interpretaciya. [Interaction. Interview. Interpretation]. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 67–74. (In Russ.)
  10. Ilyin V. I. (2003) Drama of everyday life. «Teleskop»: nabljudenija za povsednevnoj zhizn’ju peterburzhcev [”Telescope”: observations of the daily life of St. Petersburg residents]. No. 2: 2–8. (In Russ.)
  11. Kopylova T. R. (2015) Silence as a term: the problem of polysemy. Vestnik UdGU. Ser. Istorija i filologija [Bulletin of UdSU. Ser. History and Philology]. Vol. 25. No. 5: 7–11. (In Russ.)
  12. Pagis M. (2010) Producing intersubjectivity in silence: an ethnographic study of meditation practice. Ethnography. Vol. 11. No. 2: 309–328. doi: 10.1177/1466138109339041.
  13. Plamper J. (2018) The history of emotions. Moscow: NLO. (In Russ.)
  14. Podvoyskiy D. G., Spirkina A. K. (2022) In the quiet…, between people…: silence as a subject of sociological study. Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 6: 125–135. doi: 10.31857/S013216250019659-7. (In Russ.)
  15. Sacks H., Schegloff E. A., Jefferson G. A. (2015) Simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Russian Sociological Review]. Vol. 14. No. 1: 142–202. (In Russ.)
  16. Scheff T. (2006) Aggression, hypermasculine emotions and relations: the silence/violence pattern. Irish Journal of Sociology. Vol. 15: 24–39. doi: 10.1177/079160350601500103.
  17. Schegloff E. A., Sacks H. (1973) Opening up Closings. Semiotica. Vol. 8. No. 4: 289–327.
  18. Schutz A. (2003) On multiple realities. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Russian Sociological Review]. Vol. 3. No. 2: 3–34. (In Russ.)
  19. Schutz A. (2004) Selected works. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.)
  20. Simmel G. (1906) The Sociology of Secrecy and of Secret Societies. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 11. No. 4: 441–498.
  21. Solodovnikova N. G. (2017) Emotional polyvalence of zero signs in linguoecological aspect (on the example of the word silence). Mir lingvistiki i kommunikacii: jelektronnyj nauchnyj zhurnal [World of linguistics and communication: electronic scientific journal]. No. 1: 67–80. (In Russ.)
  22. Spirkina A. K. (2023) «Silence game» as a form of social interaction. Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 7: 84–92. doi: 10.31857/S013216250026588-9. (In Russ.)
  23. Vakhshtayn V. S. (2009) Between «practice» and «deeds»: the unbearable lightness of theories of everyday life. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Russian Sociological Review]. Vol. 8. No. 1: 61–70. (In Russ.)
  24. Volkov V. V., Kharkhordin O. V. (2008) The theory of practices. St. Petersburg: EU v SPb.. (In Russ.)
  25. Wittgenstein L. (2019) Philosophical investigations. Moscow: AST. (In Russ.)
  26. Zerubavel E. (2006) The elephant in the room: silence and denial in everyday life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences