A Sociology of the Absurd

by Stanford M. Lyman, Marvin B. Scott

This work provides a crystallization and particularization of a school of sociological thinking variously called "creative sociology," "existential sociology," "phenomenological sociology," "conflict theory," and "dramaturgical analysis." The result is a methodological synthesis of the "dual" visions of Erving Goffman and Harold Garfinkel.
This book equips the reader with a framework for providing adequate descriptions of those face-to-face encounters that make up everyday life. This edition includes essays not found in the first edition, as well as a new introduction that locates it in the spectrum of contemporary theorizing.

Genres: Nonfiction

256 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1970

Reviews

[Ari Stillman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four years ago I spotted the 1970 first edition of this book at at a used bookstore and was intrigued enough to get it from the local library (and regret not purchasing it on the spot as it's hard to come by). It is not just a gem of a timepiece in sociological thought but has much import to our times today. The book addresses the social construction of meaning-making in society and the prerogative of the individual to create meaning therein. This is in explicit contrast to functionalism, which was a dominant strand of epistemology at the time of the original publication. Given the focus on micro-sociology and individual agency, the sociology of the absurd draws substantively from Garfinkel's ethnomethodology and especially Goffman's symbolic interactionism – with the latter having subsumed the sociology of the absurd in the subsequent theoretical canon.

The book itself offers a loose theory by way of problematizing the terrain and then compiles 7 chapters that do not engage explicitly with the theory but rather serve to illustrate its remit. This includes the meta-cognition of game theory in negotiating exceptional situations (in contrast to the sociology of the everyday), identity, and deviance from norms. Rather than providing a single case for each chapter, the authors draw from numerous cases to make their argument – affording breath for further inquiry over depth of conclusive accounting. However, a contemporary reader might take issue with the cavalier accounts of marginalized groups, which should be read in the spirit in which they are drawn upon that was normal for the times rather than than superficially distracting from the underlying argument. The book concludes with a single paragraph tying each chapter together to the theory before briefly commenting on the inner-worldly humanism at the heart of sociological inquiry over an utopianism that over-privileges structure above existential agency.