Does Goffman's Work Help Us Understand Social Interaction - Essay Example

?In what ways does Goffman's work help us understand social interaction and al life? XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX Course: XXXXXXXXXX Date: XXXXXXXXXXX In his work, Goffman help us in understanding the presentation of self in a description of social behavior in a social setting. He relates social interaction to a theater stage by attributing the actor’s characteristics to an individual’s traits. For instance, when an individual enters a social “stage” two things are seen: they give verbal communication and they give off non-verbal cues. Additionally, they will try to manipulate the definition of the situation by the way they act, which in the end will manipulate the attitudes of the people they are around with. According to Goffman view a person as an actor, in one way or another, a person will put a performance. By definition performance is “the activity of an individual which occurs during a period marked by his continuous presence before a particular set of observers and which has some influence on the observers” (Goffman, 1983, 22). The interaction order by Goffman involves investigation of face-to-face interaction especially amongst strangers. The supplementary tasks involved the application of theatrical and game metaphors to discover deception in the social world and as an assessment of the role of reflexivity in social investigation, especially as seen by the “framing” of social life. Moreover, Goffman made an important contribution to the related fields of sociology of mental illness and the sociology of stigma (Blumer, 1985, 305) Goffman’s main objective was to ascertain the study of face-to-face communication as a substantive apprehension in its own right. This flew in the face of both main theorists, for instance Parsons, who while respecting Goffman’s assessment, however wanted to absorb this and other fields into a larger theory and of politically thinking sociologist of all persuasions who evaluated Goffman’s assessment to be a trifling as those of his rational predecessor, George Simmel. The interaction order is a theoretical map to every occasion of face-to-face relations. The map is thus supposed to envelop behavior in, among other places “restaurants, elevators, stadiums and dinner parties”. Therefore, all face-to-face interactions need the “co-presence” of participants meaning that people must sense that others are close enough to them to be noticed at whatever they are doing. Further Goffman differentiated the three types of co-presence: “the gathering, the situation and the social occasion” (Charon, 1998, 23). According to Goffman, a gathering means coming together of two or more people and a situation occurs when there is a common monitoring while a social occasion is enclosed by space and time and is likely to engage props or special equipment. Therefore, a social occasion for instance a birthday party becomes the basis against gatherings and situations can occur. For each of these forms of co-presence there are differentiating patterns of communication traffic order, which Goffman defined as situational properties. Focused interactions take place when people “extend one another a special communication license, and maintain a special form of mutual activity” (Rawls, 1987, 136). This incorporates interactions between friends, acquaintances and under very special occasions the unacquainted. Unfocused interaction on the other hand takes place mainly in urban settings. Even though efforts are made to slow down, the current of information people read each other through “body idiom” and perceived “involvement” (Rawls, 1987, 137). Through body, idiom people judge each other according to social standards. Our body idiom thus is made up of impression that we either freely give or involuntarily give off. Involvement therefore is an internal state that others recognize through observable behavioral markers. The sociology of mental illness and stigma can be seen in Goffman’s book “Asylums” (1968). In the book, Goffman gives little information about the hospital in which he did his dissertation; instead, the book gives a tone to life. Goffaman assessed the traits of total institutions of which he used Saint Elizabeth as an illustration. Asylums give an assessment of the “pre-patient, in-patient and ex-patient” stages of moral career of the mental patient (Goffman, 1968, 5). Goffman gave a delicate and moving account of the procedure whereby a person can become eligible for institutionalization. Pre-patients experience a betrayal phase as the people they depend on the most that is family and friends are against them reporting their questionable behavior to physicians. Once institutionalized inmates go through “civil death” as they lose many of the freedoms that are taken for granted. There is more, the “mortification of self” as patients are uniformed through regulation clothes and put through myriad of humiliation. Stubborn patients are punished by being isolated in an unpleasant ward, apparently for their own sake. Patients may move to the ward system through good behavior, comprehended by psychiatrists as analytical of improving mental health (Goffman, 1968, 11). Over time, patients are given priorities for good conduct as proved by improved behavior and following of rules. Both stages of total institutional life show inmates that they are not what they perceive themselves to be. According to Goffman, total institution is a “forcing house” with an objective to change people. Therefore, in the face of these difficulties inmates ought to either accept a hugely diminished sense of self or protect themselves from the social psychological threat shown by the total institution itself. The latter is gained without direct argument by what the patients of Saint Elizabeth called “playing cool” (Bulmer, 1984, 62). This involved a set of approaches intended to restore a sense of autonomy and self worth to the patient. Nonetheless, Goffman recommended, hospital personnel did not comprehend these approaches they mistook them as further proof of mental illness. The vital issue for Goffman is that although everyone obligates “situational improperties” only a few of these cases of inappropriate behavior are taken by psychiatrist, and others to be indicative of mental illness. Psychiatrists lack a “technical mapping” that could differentiate indicative and non-indicative situational improperties (Elias, 1991, 10). Hence, the infrequently transparent often-latent message of asylums is that psychiatrist need a scientific comprehension of mental illness and depends instead on lay explanation. Therefore, according to Goffman many are the times when psychiatrist misunderstood the behavior of their patients. This concept of Goffman’s work put a special emphasis on his assessment to show how sociological knowledge can undermine psychiatrist knowledge. Therefore, his scrutiny of Saint Elizabeth added positively to the reevaluation of psychiatry and the way the mentally ill are handled (Burkitt, 1991, 23) Goffman also assessed interpersonal management of stigma. According to him stigma is a “deeply discrediting” characteristic in the context of a set of relationships. He differentiated three types: “abominations of the body, blemishes of character and tribal stigma” (Jenkins, 1996, 4). The objective of his assessment was mainly the stigmatized person’s method of “information control” whereby disgracing, unrevealed information could be managed. Goffman discovered that the management of potentially harming information was critical for three features of recognition: the “personal, the social and the ego”. Our personal identity is what makes everyone unique in addition, to life histories (Mead, 1999, 57). Social identity is what others comprehend about us by virtue of the groups to which we belong. The presence of ego identity refers to what we perceive about ourselves. Goffman further, added that we are all stigmatized at some point. Therefore, there is a range rather than a binary opposition between normal and stigmatized. Normal deviants also exist among the stigmatized who share the thoughts of stigmatized people who are against convections. Goffman referred a frame as a form of organizing experiences: that is we use frames to recognize what is taking place. For instance, “a story may be taken as a joke, a warning, a lesson or an invitation”. Frame assessment is thus the study of organization of experience. The most important frameworks are frameworks that reveal what is really happening in the social world or in nature. Goffman recommends that as performers we both intentionally give and unwittingly give off parody. This is because, almost everyone is skilled in the art of impression management that we control all aspects of the behavior of the people we come across (Elias, N. (1991) Through Goffman work, we get to understand social interaction and institutional life. Social interaction involves the way people present themselves in social gathering and public places. A person presents diverse behavior in social gatherings. Therefore, it is through social interaction people get to be judgmental and perceive an individual according to the behavior shown during the interactions. Since people are most of the time performing, they ought to be careful not to slip up. They ought to be aware of when they are doing all the time so that they do not make an accidental behavior that may make them be perceived differently. This Goffman defined as an “inadequate dramaturgical direction” (Goffman, 1983, 17). Even though this is broadened in teams or groups of people working together. When it comes to institutional, of life Goffman condemned psychiatrist of being judgmental and using vague assessment to determine whether an individual is mentally ill or not. At times, the perceived mentally ill individuals feel isolated and discriminated therefore they show behavior that psychiatrist view as mentally unstable. Therefore, Goffman recommends the use of scientific research and behavioral changes to determine whether one should be institutionalized or not. Referencing Goffman E, (1968). Asylums: Essays on the social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. London: Penguin Goffman, E. (1983). ‘The Interaction Order’, American Sociological Review, 48: 1-17. Blumer, H. (1985) ‘Symbolic Interactionism’, in R. Collins (ed.) Four Sociological Traditions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 304-321. Bulmer, M. (1984). The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalisation, Diversity and the Rise of Sociological Research. London: University of Chicago Press. Burkitt, I. (1991). Social Selves: Theories of the Social Formation of Personality. London: Sage. Charon, J.M. (1998). Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, An interpretation, An Integration. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Elias, N. (1991). The Society of Individuals. Oxford: Blackwell. Jenkins, R. (1996). Social Identity. London: Routledge. Mead, G. H. (1999) ‘The Self, the I and the Me’, in C. Lemert (ed.) Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings. Boulder: Westview Press. Rawls, A. (1987) ‘The Interaction Order Sui Generis: Goffman’s Contribution to Social Theory. Sociological Theory, 5: 136-149. Read More