Show Less
Restricted access


Rationalising Automobility in the Face of Climate Change


Laura Bang Lindegaard

The book investigates the negotiation of governmental rationalities of car-dependent life in the face of climate change. It appears that current forms of governing are bound up with a specific utilisation of the freedom of the governed. Accordingly, the book demonstrates how the governing of automobility unfolds as people account for and, hence, conduct their transportation practices. In this way, it unravels how villagers in a small Danish village negotiate a municipal strategy and conduct their transportation practices in ways that merely sustain the villagers’ already maintained car-dependent life forms.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

3. Ethnomethodology


The overall purpose of this chapter is to clarify what I mean when I talk about rationality and morality and to discuss how these phenomena can be made available for enquiry. In more detail, the purpose of this chapter is to draw on ethnomethodology to demonstrate how rationality and morality are continuously negotiated in talk-in-interaction, thereby further illuminating why the study of discursive interaction needs to be included in studies of governance.

I would like to begin by pointing to two overall, somewhat related issues. Firstly, the notion of an ethnomethodological research perspective stems from Garfinkel and his 1967 publication Studies in Ethnomethodology. Since the publication of Studies, ethnomethodology has developed and come to dominate two research fields. Conversation analysis is concerned with the sequential organisation of talk in everyday and institutional settings, while membership categorisation analysis is concerned with the social organisation of knowledge in categories. Both conversation analysis and membership categorisation analysis stem from the work of Sacks, but the relationship between conversation analysis and membership categorisation analysis, and the relation of these two strands to Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology, has been the object of considerable debate. In particular, the debate is characterised by two somewhat demarcated positions, the first holding that Sacks’s work represents a more autonomous field of conversation analysis that might be inspired by, but needs to be separated from, Garfinkel’s thinking (for instance, Schegloff 1992: xviii); the other holding that Sacks’s work is founded in and, importantly, further develops aspects of Garfinkel’s...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.