Jurassic technology? Sustaining presumptions of intersubjectivity in a disruptive environment

While the problem of intersubjectivity has motivated a great deal of sociological research, there has been little consideration of the relationship between intersubjectivity-sustaining practices and the physical environment in which these are enacted. The Museum of Jurassic Technology (MJT) is a strategic site for exploring this relationship. With its labyrinthine layout and bewildering exhibits, the MJT provides a natural “breaching experiment” in which concrete elements of the space disrupt normal competencies for sustaining presumptions of intersubjectivity. Using ethnographic data on visitor interaction, this article specifies two disruptive aspects of the physical environment and identifies four methods of repair on which visitors rely to reestablish presumptions of intersubjectivity. The analysis of spatially situated processes of intersubjective disruption and repair in an extreme case such as the MJT is a first step toward “emplacing” the intersubjectivity problem in more everyday settings. Ever since Schutz’s “sociologization” of Husserl’s phenomenology, the problem of intersubjectivity has motivated much sociological research. The central question is that of how interacting subjects, with no ability to see through any eyes but their own, are able to take it for granted that they share reciprocal perspectives with one another – to operate as if it can be assumed that how one experiences the world is, more or less, how others experience it. As Schutz (1967a:316) put it: “I take it for granted, and I assume my fellow-[hu]man does the same, that I and my fellow-[hu] man would have typically the same experiences of the common world if we changed places....” Research in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis has illuminated the practices by which subjects manage this presumption of intersubjectivity “for all practical purposes” (Schutz 1967a:12), showing that its ongoing maintenance is Theor Soc (2008) 37:127–159 DOI 10.1007/s11186-007-9054-9 R. S. Jansen (*) Sociology Department, University of California, Los Angeles, 264 Haines Hall, box 951551, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1551, USA e-mail: [email protected] fundamental to sensible interaction – both as its foundation and often its object – in everyday and professional settings. But for all of the work that has been done on the problem of intersubjectivity, almost none has focused explicitly on the relationship between intersubjectivitysustaining practices and the physical environment in which these are enacted. This is somewhat surprising, as sociology has long appreciated that social relations are embedded in concrete settings. In particular, symbolic interactionists have repeatedly found that physical space channels opportunities for interaction and that interaction plays a central role in the social constitution and organization of spatiality. It is thus worthwhile to “emplace” (Gieryn 2000) the intersubjectivity problem by asking: What is the relationship between those practices that sustain impressions of intersubjectivity and the physical environment in which these are enacted? As a first step toward generating some answers, this article analyzes interaction in an unusual setting – the Museum of Jurassic Technology – that brings the spatial situation of intersubjectivity-sustaining practices into high relief. The Museum of Jurassic Technology (MJT) is a strange place. Even the simple task of finding and entering the facility can be disconcerting. Uncharacteristically for a museum, the façade is poorly marked and set inconspicuously between a flooring shop and a Thai restaurant on a working class strip in Culver City, California. Upon locating the entrance, visitors meet an imposing, grey steel door that – quite unwelcomingly – is not equipped with a handle. Turning to the right (below a glassencased diorama containing a black marble urn with white moths suspended in the background), most visitors will notice a small, gold plaque: “The Museum of Jurassic Technology ... ring buzzer once for admittance.” After looking up and down the block for a minute, and sometimes pushing once or twice on the door itself, someone will tentatively press the small black button above the plaque. In a few seconds, the door will crack open and out of the blackness inside will emerge a museum staffer who will ask, mysteriously: “Would you like to sign our guest book?” 1 On Husserl’s phenomenology, see Farber 1943. For Schutz’s discussion of Husserl and the “reciprocity of perspectives,” see Schutz 1967a, b. Foundational works in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis include Garfinkel [1967] 1984, Sacks 1992, Sacks et al. 1974, Schegloff 1968, and Schegloff and Sacks 1973. Heritage (1984) provides a comprehensive overview of this research, while Atkinson and Heritage (1984) assemble some exemplary studies. 2 Some recent ethnomethodological work does point in the right direction. For example, in his discussion of library search aids, Crabtree (2000) raises many important points about the social organization of space and the interactional accomplishment of spatially-situated activities. Likewise, Laurier et al.’s (2001) exploration of the practical organization of informality around tables at a café is quite interesting. (However, the former is light on data; and the latter is not framed explicitly in terms of the problem of intersubjectivity.) 3 Sociologists as diverse as Weber ([1922] 1978:1212–1372), Marx ([1848] 1977:227–228), Wirth (1938), Lefebvre (1991), and Foucault (1977:195–228)—as well as countless others—have been attentive to the spatial dimension of social relations. As Gieryn (2000:464) points out, there exists “an enduring tradition of robust sociological studies of place that remains invisible only because it is never framed that way.” 4 See for example Goffman 1959 (Chapter 3) and 1961, Lofland 1998, Nash 1981, Smith and Bugni 2006, and Whyte 1980. 5 Late in my fieldwork, the MJT added a small door handle in response to visitor complaints. According to museum staffers who work the front door, however, most visitors still ring the buzzer, only afterwards noticing the handle. 128 Theor Soc (2008) 37:127–159