Goffman and Foucault Approaches to the Ordering of Social Life - Essay Example

CONTRAST Goffman and Foucault Approaches to the Ordering of Social Life Introduction Although there are similarities, Goffman and Foucault offer contrasting theories for the most desirable and effective ordering of social life. In my view both theories have validity, but in our age of globalization and multiculturalism I would argue Foucault’s theory shows the most promise. I will explain my rationale later in this essay. Similarities Both Goffman’s and Foucault’s theories concern themselves with issues of order in social life (Silva 2009 p. 311). In other words, we have certain cultural norms we are expected to adhere to in our relations with our fellow citizens. If we act in accordance with these norms we feel we have the right to expect similar responses from others. For example, if we treat others with courtesy, civility and consideration we anticipate a similar response. If we follow societal rules such as performing our particular job faithfully to the best of our ability in accordance with its’ requirements we expect to be compensated at least to the level we have been promised. This is the basis of social order, that is, the following of societal norms, values rules so that predictable favourable consequences can be anticipated. If we do not follow the prescribed norms and negative consequences ensue, this is considered deviant or antisocial behaviour and the antithesis of social order. While both Goffman and Foucault were interested in the preservation of social order they differed in how they felt this could be best achieved. Differences Goffman theorized that social order is based on individual interactions resulting from socially proscribed rituals (Silva 2009 p.319) In other words we are socialized to behave to others in culturally determined ways depending on the particular kind of situation and the relation of the participants. Often religious values dictate cultural norms. For example, extreme conservative Muslims may be outraged by what they consider as depraved Western dress and behaviour and feel that their family honour justifies a father murdering his daughter who breached strict conservative moral codes. Social order based on individual interaction within rigid socially proscribed rules tends to prevail more in homogeneous religion based cultures such as Muslim states. I would classify this as a form of symbolic interaction In contrast Foucault’s theory emphasizes a more structural functional framework for explaining social order. He argues that this is determined less by a summation of individual interactions than by historic developments which cause societies to evolve in certain ways to maintain social order (Silva 2009 p.319).Rather than religious ethics being the prime determinant of a pattern of individual interactions, laws and social customs promote social order. These social rules are set by the powerful elite, in the past hereditary royalty and tribal chiefs but now more likely democratically elected political leaders. Many govern multicultural societies with voluminous and sometimes complex laws in theory at least designed to apply equally to everyone. They are administered through large bureaucracies and court systems These leaders also promote values they envision as essential for the well being of their nation such as free enterprise , tolerance, etc. Laws evolve in accordance with changes in societal norms and are becoming less concerned with preserving religiously proscribed social strictures than with allowing maximum freedom providing right of others are not infringed. A case in point is the legalization of same sex marriage. Thus in Foucault’s view social order is maintained by the historical development of institutions and rules such as laws, courts, bureaucracies and schools which can evolve over time in accordance with shifts in societal norms, but especially in a global multicultural world provide social order through tolerance for competing values of other as long as certain fundamental core values are not breached rather than the Goffman model of adherence to individual interaction norms. I would describe this as a sort of flexible structural functional approach. The text goes on to describe 2 theories of traffic flow considered in the UK based on the Foucault and Goffman theories. Traffic Flows One application of the theories of Goffman and Foucault is in the control of traffic in post World War ii Britain. Car ownership and use rose drastically from the 19602 onwards causing serious congestion on roads originally built for pedestrian and horse and carriage use (Silva 2009 p. 325). . To address the problem the government commissioned the Buchanan report in 1963 which advocated as much as possible the segregation of vehicles and pedestrians to different spaces. This follows the macro structural functional rationale approach of Foucault which postulates that vehicles and pedestrians are incompatible and therefore should be allocated different space because obviously a pedestrian is no match for a heavy vehicle especially if it is speeding and/or being driven without appropriate control. If possible pedestrians should be able to cross roads at periodic foot bridges and/or tunnels. If this is not feasible and vehicles and pedestrians and vehicles have to share the same space at clearly designated crosswalks the former should have the right of way. Some complained that instead of rationalizing traffic flow and making it safer for everyone increased clutter due to road signage, kerbs, speed bumps and centre white lines actually had the opposite effect as drivers became more distracted, irritated and less calmly focused on safety. Because of this Mondeman advocated shared space designs except for highways and major urban centres (Silva 2009 p. 333). This is based on the notion that in this model traffic lights and other traffic controls are unnecessary because pedestrians and drivers through eye contact and gestures would negotiate use of the space in a Goffman interaction way. Apparently by applying his shared space theories to some Dutch towns. Mondeman .was able to demonstrate some decrease in speeding but there was no evidence provided that safety improved or traffic flow was enhanced. Personally I suspect that the notion that eye contact and gestures alone without traffic controls as in this “naked street” model will facilitate safety and traffic flow is rather naïve. For example, it is based on the assumption drivers and pedestrians will always be courteous to each other. Secondly even the best intended gesture can be misinterpreted. Finally I doubt it will work in poor lighting circumstances such as at night. Although it can be overdone, I would argue that some signage and traffic controls are necessary to rationally regulate traffic. Also I would favour at least the more important signs be illuminated at night and in picture form rather than verbal for those not fluent in English. Although reliance on courtesy and “common sense” may be required on occasion for example when a power outage make traffic lights non functional, unfortunately I don’t think we have come far enough as a society that we can rely solely on human qualities of mutual consideration. Also I suggest only “no fault” insurance would be possible as it would be very difficult to determine issues of negligence and responsibility for accidents. Therefore I favour the rational Foucault-Buchanan approach with the segregation of vehicles and pedestrians as much as possible as obviously their power is very disparate. Deviance and/or Anti Social Behaviour Deviance and antisocial behaviour can only be determined in relation to prevailing notions of compliant ( with accepted norms) or social behaviour. In other words the same behaviour may be regarded as compliant in our culture but deviant in another or deviant in one time frame but compliant in the next or deviant in the dominant culture of a society but compliant in a subculture. In 1991 the UK passed the Dangerous Dogs Act banning certain breeds of dogs considered aggressive and imposing strict liability on their owners for any bites they inflicted on people (Kelly and Toynbee 2009 p. 356). This apparently was the result of press reports of vicious unprovoked attacks by these breeds and the labeling of their owners as anti social. It appears there was no attempt to calculate the number and severity of attacks in a given period in relation to their population and comparing this with those of other breeds. In other words there was a public impression inflamed by the media that these 4 breeds were exceptionally vicious and should be banned without any evidence supporting this contention. Goffman would probably support the ban especially if he and/or his friends happened to have been attacked by one of these breeds based on his emotional outrage inflamed by graphic press accounts without considering whether there was evidence supporting the notion these 4 breeds were exceptionally dangerous. Foucault even he had personally been bitten by 1 of the allegedly dangerous breeds I suspect would first attempt to get statistics of attacks by different breeds before deciding whether to support this legislation. This is not to say official statistics are necessarily correct. They may under report crime because for various reasons not all crime is reported to the police. However unless there is evidence of a significant shift in public reporting habits they do indicate general trends and therefore I thin they are the best tools available to guide public policy. Conclusion We live in a global multicultural world with competing values. While we must have certain core values to perpetuate social order we must compromise on other values as much as possible to give minority societies a sense of inclusion in the social order. I believe Foucault’s vision based on flexible abstract laws evenly applied enforcing primarily core values and providing for accommodation and negotiation in other respects is the route I feel we should follow. I don’t think Goffman’s idea of social order based on personal interaction is realistic when we have to deal largely with strangers. However I do agree that social order is promoted by strong primary relationships as evidence has shown that people from dysfunctional families are more likely to engage in deviant and anti social behaviour. WordCount1646. References 1). Kelly, Bob and Toynbee, Jason “Chapter 8 Making Disorder on the Street” Making Social Lives 2009. 2) Silva, Elizabeth B. “Chapter 7. Making Social Order” Making Social Lives 2009. Read More