Week 7: Garfinkel, 'Breaching Experiments' and the nature of Social Reality

Link: http://cheezburger.com/6529091072

            So what I got from the reading and lecture this week is that society is essentially fabricated. That is to say we interpret meaning (of conversations, objects, etc.) based on a ‘documentary method of interpretation’-comparisons or a process of recognition based on a basic script, seen as universal despite having relatively no foundation. 

            I know I reference Facebook a lot but I feet that the link above exemplifies both Garfinkel’s breaching experiments and the subtexts of conversations (generally studied in conversation analysis) discussed in the lecture. For the former, consider the line “are you referring to carbonated drinks of frosty malty beverages?” which is responded to with “uhhh beer?” The responder is confused because he expects a level of mutual understanding between himself and the other interactant. We should also note the title of the link-‘The truth behind these stories’. The edit of ‘what actually happened’ suggests a subtext of what is occurring in the conversation.

            An editorial from Stokoe and Weatherall (2002) explores the debates of Conversation analysis (CA) and Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) relational to feminist investigations of how gender affects interactions. This corresponds with our previous studies of Goffman in that the self is contextually produced through performances or interactions with others. A study by Goodwin on female conversations in the playground identifies that “interactional workings of power…can be traced and made visible as participants’ concerns” (in Stokoe and Weatherall 2002, p709). This enforces that Conversation Analysis can reveal both power relations and the individuals’ concerns. These elements of conversation are recognized in Tanaka and Fukushima’s study of Japanese workplace relations as “sequence, grammar, semantics and prosody” (in Stokoe and Weatherall 2002, p709). By focusing on these elements in a conversation we may reveal issues of power relations, individual sentiments and the documentary process in communication.

References

Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’, in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp28-82

Heritage, J 1984, ‘The Morality of Cognition’ in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp75-102

Stokoe, E & Weatherall, A 2002, ‘Gender, Language, Conversation Analysis and Feminism’, Discourse & Society, vol. 13, no. 6, pp707-713

Week 6: Goffman's Dramaturgical Metaphor for Life

Link one (pregnancy): http://failbook.failblog.org/tag/exaggeration/

Link two (negative idealization, old man): http://www.lamebook.com/grandpa-troll/gramps/

            What I found most interesting from the reading this week was the exploration of idealization. This concept of idealization suggested that the self is in fact an abstract performance-exaggerated or underrepresented depending on the audience and the ‘stage’ or situation. Link 1 is a Facebook status in which the individual exaggerates pregnancy as the only time when putting on weight is positive (she is then proved wrong publicly, producing cracks in her performance). The exaggeration here is obviously intended to express the happiness at both pregnancy and all that it entails. The concept of the pregnant self is then seen to be abstract as it is not necessarily based in reality but in a set of generally accepted social ideals concerning a ‘positive’ pregnancy. The examples offered in the comments may have been ignored intentionally to allow the poster to exaggerate their condition or unintentionally, suggesting that it has become inherent within us to exaggerate all our performances.

            Goffman also explores the concept of negative idealization. I propose that this comes in two forms: for modesty or personal gain. The former, described by Goffman as “systematic modesty” (1971, p47), may be based on what Smith describes as a “fellow-feeling” (1812, p3) for those around us. In the reading, Goffman gives the example of a girlfriend playing down her intelligence to build up the confidence of her boyfriend. Here abilities are underplayed due to a sentiment for those around us. The latter example of negative modesty can be seen in link two. Here we see an elderly man downplaying his physical capabilities to take advantage of others-that is, for personal gain. In all three of these instances the self is seen as an abstracted concept that can be manipulated to suit the situation, similar to the situationally based nature of deference and demeanor seen in last weeks reading.

References:

Goffman, Erving. 1971. “Performances.” Pp. 28-82 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Goffman, Erving. 1967. “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor.” Pp. 47-96 in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.  

Smith, A 1812, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Strahan and Preston, London, accessed 24/08/12, Google Scholar: http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=d-UUAAAAQAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP18&dq=adam+smith+the+theory+of+moral+sentiments&ots=mjeJHDTJif&sig=_TsDVq-TZzqEnE66pB7YK9RqPNM#v=onepage&q=adam%20smith%20the%20theory%20of%20moral%20sentiments&f=false

Week 5: Goffman-What is the self? How are selves socially produced and managed?

http://www.epicfail.com/2009/08/11/facebook-job-fail/

             

            Deference is described as the means of displaying appreciation for an individual through actions. Deference works in conjunction with demeanor in the production of individuals and their expectations of social interactions. Demeanor is explored by Goffman as a way in which the individual expresses themselves through a variety of behaviors to be interpreted by other members of the social grouping. Scotts explores this in the way in which certain talk or behavior may change or be determined by the class group with whom the individual is interacting. Character profanation is when the deference does not meet the expectations of the individual and can come in the form of play, threat to others and the threat to self-image. This can occur when a ‘mark’ is ‘cooling’ or an individual is adjusting to a position that they feel does not meet their perceived demeanor. This ‘cooling’ may come in the form of venting or may be prevented through the disconnection of the individual from the role. Goffman suggests that consolation for this event can be produced when social roles remain separate.

            What we see occurring in this Facebook interaction (linked above) is a case where an individual feels they are suffering character profanation within their workplace. The status itself is obviously a case of ‘cooling’ or what Scott describes as the “hidden transcript” (Scott 1990, xii) of the subordinated. They are both venting and-it may be assumed since they are on a trial- disconnecting from the job itself as it does not yet meet their standards. The issue that arises here is that several life roles of the individual have been merged so that the transcript or ‘cooling’ of the individual is no longer hidden from those in a higher social position (i.e. their boss). Thus we see how modern technology merges several forms of social intercourse or social roles causing problems for the individual.

           

References:

Goffman, Erving. 1967. “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor”. Pp 47-96 in Interaction Ritual; Essays on Face to Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon Books.

Goffman, Erving. 1952. “On Cooling the Mark Out: Some Aspects of Adaptation to Failure.” Available at http://www.tau.ac.il/~algazi/mat/Goffman--Cooling.htm

Scott, JC 1990, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts, Edwards Brothers inc, United States of America.