Critique and Criticism: Two Reading of Ethnomethodology.

The article presents author's response to criticisms made by sociologists Barry Barnes and Donald MacKenzie in their papers related to explanation of interests. According to the author they both appear to have misunderstood certain key aspects of the author's arguments. Their general conclusion is that the author is negative. Barnes, according to the author, correctly recognizes that the basis for the author's critique of recent socio-historical theorizing in the social study of science has long been discussed in its application to sociology in general. The reformist reaction takes the position that the problem of descriptions is largely inconsequential because it represents a technical difficulty encountered in the course of explanation. Descriptions are acknowledged as unreliable, but the source of this unreliability is located in the process whereby descriptions are generated. Barnes points out that the author has engaged in theorizing. But the author wishes to draw to quite separate endeavors, and in order to do this it is necessary to maintain a vigorous antipathy to theorizing.