Overview

Goffman outlines in several essays approaches to human interaction from a dramaturgical perspective. To Goffman, all forms of interaction are kinds of performances. These performances may fall under the structure of rituals, socially acceptable formalized interactions. One of Goffman’s goals is to outline the units of these interactions so that they may be studied in a symbolic manner. Goffman is directly influenced by George Mead, and has gone on to influence others (Kenneth Burke, I think), Manford Kuhn, and McCall and Simmons.

Notes

Goffman opens by discussing the need for study of low level behavior as it relates to interaction. He wants to find the natural units of interaction. Wants to find an order that transcends the individual culture being studied. The study of interactions lies not in the individual, but within the acts between the individual and others [social grouping] (This is the oppostite of McCall and Simmons stated approach). Goffman sees here to find a minimal model of social interaction. (p. 1-2)

On Face-Work

Goffman’s first essay is on “Face Work”, this is face in the sense of saving face. It is the dramatic presentation of self displayed to others. This is exaggerated and attuned to current social drama/interaction. Also related is the concept of a “line”, which is a pattern of acts that express an engagement with the situation. Lines sound scripted and this is probably Goffman’s intent. (p. 5) Most encounters are conventionalized: there are only a few options available to an individual. The choice between the options is dependent on immediate and long term goals. (p. 7) There is behavior evidence of being in the right face for a situation: a person responds with confidence, assurance, and security when in right face. When in wrong face, a person is likely to feel ashamed, judged, or threatened. (p. 8) Face is transferable: there is a system of obligation and interaction, individuals can allow others to take face instead of themselves. Face becomes sort of an obligational currency. (p. 9)

There are several methods for responding to threats to face made by others (whether intentional or not). Intentional threats are malicious insults, while unintentional ones are faux passes, misunderstandings, and the like. (p. 14) There are rituals to address the loss of face. Avoidance is one approach, avoiding the cause of the threat. To repair threats is performed via rituals intended to restore equilibrium. (p. 19) A simple example is when A bumps into B in the street. A says “excuse me”, B says “certainly”. Those speech acts are the corrective ritual.

Aggressive interchanges are contests of face work. This is when face is used as a resource in conflicts. These exchanges generally require audiences and are performances themselves. Many social contests can be explained by this. (p. 25) Dynamics of class and other factors limits face work. In matter of choosing face work, the dilemma is not the enactment of the incident, but the confusion over what face to use to handle it. (p. 26)

Ritual means playing oneself. (p. 32) The symbolic function of discourse is not (just) the exchange or communication of ideas, but the play of assertions. (p. 38) Relationships imply some dependency for face saving. Compare with relationship dynamics described by McCall and Simmons. Face saving is a currency of the relationship. (p. 42) On finding one’s place in social establishment: “Whatever his position in society, the person insulates himself by blindness, half-truths, illusions, and rationalizations. He makes an ‘adjustment’ by convincing himself, with the tactful support of his intimate circle, that the is what he wants to be and that he would not do to gain his ends what the others have done to gain theirs.” (p. 43)

On construct-like approach to human nature: “Universal human nature is not a very human thing. By acquiring it, the person becomes a kind of construct, built up not from inner psychic propensities but from moral rules that are impressed upon him from without.” (p. 45) This justifies the validity of simulation somewhat, and calls to point Weizenbaum’s fear of the machine-like nature of individuals. Sociologists have been likening men to machines for much longer than AI researchers and computer scientists.

The Nature of Deference and Demeanor

Deference and demeanor are factors in the code of conduct between individuals. Goffman’s study focuses on an observational study of patients at a mental hospital. Goffman’s focus in this chapter are the notions of obligation and expectation. This relates to the conduct between different classes of individuals: what is expected or obliged from one class to another. (p. 50) There are boundaries of classes, and usually multiple of these present in any circumstance. In given situations certain of these boundaries may take priority. For example, in hospital, the patient/staff boundary trumps the white/black boundary. (p. 52) Some rules are symmetric or asymmetric across boundaries. Symmetric rules are ones in which individuals have the same obligations to each other. An asymmetric rule is one where one group has authority or precedence over another. Social rules may be formal or informal. Formal rules have some degree of ostensible substance or value and are formalized to protect that substance. Informal rules are ceremonial, things like greetings, whose sole purpose is to guide conduct, their substance is secondary. (p. 53-54) The ceremonial idiom is that the tokens for ceremonial purposes have meanings for certain groups. (p. 56)

Goffman on deference: “By deference I shall refer to that component of activity which functions as a symbolic means by which appreciation is regularly conveyed to a recipient of this recipient or of something which this recipient is taken as a symbol, extension, or agent.” (p. 56) In rituals of obeisance, deference is given from one under authority to someone in authority. Implies casting, separation of social groups. But there are symmetric deferences, that superordinates owe to subordinates. The meaning may be present or abstract. Over deference deprives the act of meaning. (p. 58-59) Deference exists to enforce order on top of the actual sentiment. Omission of deference implies destructuralization and rebellion. Deference also maintains artificial difference or distance. (p. 60) There are a variety of styles in personal/relationship/formal distance: polite conversation with the boss in the elevator, patient doctor communication, filling station boss. The use and effect of style depends on the situation. (p. 65)

Types of presentation rituals: salutations, invitations, compliments, minor services; these are about inclusion. Presentation rituals and avoidance rituals are opposing in nature. “Through all of these the recipient is told that he is not an island unto himself and that others are, or seek to be, involved with him and with his personal private concerns. Taken together, these rituals provide a continuous symbolic tracing of the extent to which the recipient’s ego has not been bounded and barricaded in regard to others.” (p. 72-73)

Where deference is the code of conduct with others, demeanor is the code of conduct of oneself. Demeanor creates a self image, but for others. (p. 80) There is a dilemma regarding how to fully express oneself: to express oneself as a complete person, both deference and demeanor are necessary. Individuals must interact with each other and cooperate to express wholeness. (p. 84)

Ceremonial profanations are used to express and borderline cases and broaches of deference or demeanor. These are unique in that they express boundaries or contempt, but do not change social structure. These may be playful or contemptful, there are forms of ritualized contempt that are standard forms of expressing dissatisfaction of one kind or another (the middle finger, the slap, the insult, etc.) (p. 85)

“It is therefore important to see that the self is in part a ceremonial thing, a sacred object that must be treated with the proper ritual care and in turn must be presented in a proper light to others. As a means through which this self is established, the individual acts with proper demeanor while in contact with others and is treated by others with deference.” And later: “An environment, then, in terms of the ceremonial component of activity, is a place where it is easy or difficult to play the ritual game of having a self.” (p. 91)

Embarrassment and Social Organization

This essay is about the phenomenon of embarrassment and how it fits in with social organization. Goffman’s intent is to uncover what embarrassment is, why it happens, and how it happens. Goffman asks specifically, “By whom is the embarrassing incident caused? To whom is it embarrassing? For whom is the embarrassment felt?”. There is a vast spectrum of embarrassment: mild moments versus sustained difficult embarrassed encounters. The mechanics of embarrassment: loss of equilibrium or self control, paralysis of response. (p. 100) In playing embarrassment: becomes a dance of concealment in hiding embarrassment, when that breaks down, it becomes physical response: deep physical/emotional experience. (This is something existing under the surface, as a core biological, asocial quality, independent of standard social simulation.) The collapse of the individual implies a collapse of a larger social system, unless the system ritualizes the handling of the individual. Without resolution, new social rules must be chosen or established to deal with situation. (p. 103) Embarrassment is caused by a failure of expectations: Social obligations are not sustained. In Role centric view, one’s role is not supported, and one feels embarrassed by the failure of the role-identity. (p. 105)

Embarrassment also serves an important role in social change. The social structure is made elastic by the ritual of embarrassment: Individuals may change their presentation of self (their role identities as well?) expressing additional depth via the occurrence of embarrassment, whether it is their own or otherwise. Exact moment nature of embarrassment is complicated by its establishment in social ritual, namely embarrassment is failure of ritual, but is ritualized anyway. This allows a meta-reflexivity in ritual system, this could be made to encourage elasticity, but it could be made to make it more brittle. (p. 112)

Where the Action Is

Goffman’s sense of “Action” is of the dramatic sort. This is the idea of important or meaningful or significant acts or events which are performed or are participated in by people. Action is merely a vehicle to uncover the deeper quality of character. This essay is an interesting and extended journey. It starts with discussion of games of chance and risk, and progresses to the larger sense of consequentiality in moments. One can kill time, and that killed time is inconsequential. There is an apparent axis of actions: consequential versus inconsequential, apart from that there becomes a question of whether actions are problematic, when one is at odds to figure out what to do. (p. 164)

	Consequential	Inconsequential
Problematic	fateful action	killing time
Non-Problematic	daily work	daily routine / wasting time

Corporeality and embodiment: A body is a piece of consequential equipment. Compare with a digital presence or avatar? These are usually inconsequential, but may become consequential via enactment. (p. 167) Goffman discusses body in consequential work: in perilous roles, the body is the object of practical gambles. (p. 172) When one lives consequentially when the gamble is less practical, one must cope somehow. The Calvinistic (fated) solution is to deny the effect of consequence: so nothing can really go wrong. (p. 175)

An alternative to cope is what Goffman calls “defense”, which is a ritualized defense of action. When actions are uncertain and of high consequence, a defensive ritual is performed to save culpability of the individual. Defenses imbue a fateful event with ritual and external meaning. Compare the compulsive gambler to the professional statistical gambler. To the compulsive gambler, the dice are magical. Can also compare Weizenbaum’s compulsive programmer here. (p. 178)

Games reduce all behavior to [supposedly, at least within the game world] fateful action. A social game should do the same. Action is the quality of sustained fateful behavior. (p. 181) Results of action: “making it”, vs “blowing it”. You can either win big or loose big. (p. 193) Action is also the staging ground for the cult of masculinity in Western culture; in this, females are “passive ground” for interpersonal social action. (p. 209-210)

Qualities of character: These are qualities of self control in fateful situations: Courage, Gameness, Integrity, Gallantry, Composure, Presence of Mind, Dignity, Stage Confidence. Each of these is discussed in some detail as means of engaging with action, fatefulness, and consequence. (p. 218-226) Given these, we can look at man as not need-driven, but rather character-driven. (p. 258)