Well I can tell you the sentence is not easy for Moonbeam to understand at all. In the first place it is an academic kind of thingi, a piece of intellectual analysis involving subject matter I know nothing about. I don't know what ethnomethodology means. I've never even heard of it. I also really don't know what sociology is although I certainly know that word and have some vague notion of its implication. I could not, however, rigorously define it. So without a grasp of those concepts or a contextual reference to put a background on the statement, while I can get some also vague sense of meaning, I have no idea what the importance or relevance the concept that was intended has for me personally. I do, however, enjoy ideas and love to look at how people see the world. Mr. Garfinkel seems to have some opinions on something or other. I would suspect that linuxboy's comments are informed and accurate if only marginally more comprehensible to me owing, again, I think to my lack of grounding in the subject.
"For ethnomethodology the objective reality of social facts, in that, and just how, it is every society's locally, endogenously produced, naturally organized, reflexively accountable, ongoing, practical achievement, being everywhere, always, only, exactly and entirely, members' work, with no time out, and with no possibility of evasion, hiding out, passing, postponement, or buy-outs, is thereby sociology's fundamental phenomenon. (Garfinkel, 1991)"
OK
Ethnomethodology is:
"The branch of sociology that deals with the codes and conventions that underlie everyday social interactions and activities.
Sociology is:
"The study of human social behavior, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society.
Analysis of a social institution or societal segment as a self-contained entity or in relation to society as a whole. "
Looking at the sentence he seems to be saying, absent all the qualifiers, "For ethnomethodology the objective reality of social facts is thereby sociology's fundamental phenomenon. The 'thereby' probably refers to what is implied by the qualifiers. What does this mean?
I don't know but it seems to assume there are these things called social facts and that they are sociology's fundamental phenomenon. What a fundamental phenomenon is, I'm not sure either but I would assume he means the basics. So far I get this:
"There are things called 'social facts' that are objective (fact) and the meat and potatoes of sociology.
That leaves figuring out this:
"in that, and just how, it is every society's locally, endogenously produced, naturally organized, reflexively accountable, ongoing, practical achievement, being everywhere, always, only, exactly and entirely, members' work, with no time out, and with no possibility of evasion, hiding out, passing, postponement, or buy-outs"
Here is where I think a familiarity with Farfinkel's general line of thinking could be very informative because it seems that he is summing up a line of reasoning put forth elsewhere, and to which he assumes the reader has familiarity. The implication seems to be that he is providing supportive arguments explaining why the discussion is about something 'objective'. He seems to be referring to the "practical achievement of society". I don't know what that is other than the society itself or those social facts which is kind of like arguing that facts are facts because they are facts, but anyway. So he seems to say that how a society is, is local, self produced, has its own internal logic, and evolves, and that furthermore the members of any society cause this to happen exclusively themselves and in turn are unavoidably affected by what is produced.
So he seems to be saying that we produce and are the product of society with some hint that this is an important idea because there are many societies but they all operate on this fundamental principle.
I can see how somebody could say that he's complicating the obvious, but if you are trying to sum up a complex and lengthy philosophical analysis of many parts and wish to refer back to them all in summation, a sentence can become quite harry. Out of context and without familiarity with the background makes a real appreciation and perhaps full comprehension pretty tenuous.
The interesting question to me is why he makes these points. What is his aim. is it, as somebody suggested, to objectify a soft science. I don't know. What I like about it is the notion that some people attempt to analyze deeply what it never even enters the heads of most people to ponder. The one problem I would have with sociology, like psychology, is that it studies people as they are with not much thought to what they might become.
