List (Analyse & Kritik 1/80) and Baurmann/leist/mans (Analyse & Kritik 1/79) try to characterize ethnomethodology by two groups of statements. One group consists of trivialties, the other one contains only absurdities. This way of getting rid of ethnomethodology is enforced through some unfortunate self-representations of ethnomethodologists and a radical version of labelling theory. This part of ethnomethodology deserves criticism and shall get it in the first part of my paper. But the way of dealing with ethnomethodology by getting rid of (...) absurdities and being bored by trivialities deserves in itself to be criticized. I do this in an indirect way by proposing an alternative way to characterize ethnomethodology. This is a way that seems to me more in accordance with the practical activities of ethnomethodologists. In the last part of my paper I criticize some relativistic and some wrong epistemological convictions of ethnomethodologists, that appear in their practical research. (shrink)

What does it mean that a person is psychologically forced to do certain things? It is argued that there are, strictly speaking, no compulsive actions. Talking of compulsive actions people refer to intentional actions that are means of avoiding irrational panic attacks. People know that certain situations will cause them irrational fears and that is the reason why they avoid these situations. These irrational fears are either mediated by wrong perceptions or by emotional delusions. In the former case the people (...) believe wrongly that they are in danger, while in the latter case they know that they “feel wrong”, but cannot help it. The compulsive elements cannot be found in the actions but in the irrational fears and the obsessions that are part of them. (shrink)