8 Interaction order
Erving Goffman, The Interaction Order. American Sociological Review , Vol. 48, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 1-17
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095141
In ITALIAN:
http://www.ibs.it/code/9788871448244/goffman-erving-zzz99-giglioli/ordine-dell-interazione.html
ERVING GOFFMAN "Normal appearances", in Relations in Public. Microstudies of the Public Order. Basic Books, New York, 1971, 238-333.
Download pdf
In ITALIAN:
http://www.raffaellocortina.it/relazioni-in-pubblico
(see in FRENCH the Fiche de lecture [a summary of the book] - novembre 2006 by Frédéric Ponce)
But remember: "There is no substitute for reading Goffman in the original”! (Greg Smith, Erving Goffman, Routledge, 2006, p. 130).
For additional information:
Philip Manning, Erving Goffman (1922-1982), Encyclopedia of Social Sciences
Obituary in the NTY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman
Two interesting recent articles usig Goffman's ideas and insights:
- Haddington, Pentti et. al (2012). Civil Inattention in Public Places: Normalising Unusual Events through Mobile and Embodied Practices [62 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(3), Art. 7,
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs120375.
Abstract: This article builds on GOFFMAN's work to study how pedestrians display their orientation to unusual events in public places. It focuses on the mobile and embodied conduct of those passing a smartmob event in which a performing group "froze" in a busy transit hub for four minutes. The data comprise audio-video recordings of the event. We identify and analyse routinised mobile and embodied practices by which passers-by "normalise" the unusual event. These include different organisations of body behaviour and the ways in which passers-by walk around and between the performers as individuals and groups. The findings are supported with illustrations.
- “The Interaction Order of Public Bathrooms” by Spencer E. Cahill
http://angelabarian.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/cahill-bathrooms.pdf
For Goffman, social interaction takes shape in areas where two or more individuals are physically located in the presence of the response of the other. The actions of individuals are socially situated, they takes place face to face that is a domain analytically valid (that G. called interaction order) of which method of study most suitable is the microanalysis. For analytical purposes the face to face interaction is separated from the rest of social life.
RispondiEliminaWhen individuals are found one at presence of the other becomes clear a key feature of social life: its public dimension.
Information gathering that takes place during a social interaction includes employ a fundamental process: the social ritualization, that is the standardization achieved through the socialization process of the body and vocal behavior. When individuals are found one at presence of the other, they share a common center of attention. This assumes that there is a continuous coordination of action by those are involved in the interaction. And the verbal language increases the efficiency of the coordination. Watching and listening to an individual, we can distinguish two forms of identification processes that trigger towards our interlocutor: one categorical (placement of the individual in social categories) and one individual (distinction of the individual by name, tone of voice). Individuals who are facing one another they expect that it retains a certain order and not to invade the field of the others. Violate the territories of the self also means corrupt the language of courtesy.
"interaction order": we refer in the first instance to an area of activity (such as may be the economic order), that is ordered: the order is based on assumptions and shared cognitive and normative constraints on that feeds on itself .
Fundamental units, the recurrent structures and processes of this interaction, in one word : the zoo interactional:
1) in public places we can find "individual" and "sets"
2) units heuristics of the contact, defined as any occasion where an individual is in the presence of the response of another person.
3) situations in which people gather in a circle and physical are aware of participating in a shared activity and clearly interdependent;
4) size of the podium: the universally diffused arrangement in which an asset is held in front of an audience;
5) celebratory situations, gatherings of individuals with admission control, in honor of some occasion, the meaning of which is shared by all participants.
The idea of G. is to describe the characteristics of interaction order that directly affect macro worlds that exist beyond the interaction in which the characteristics are found.
The rituals of contact are short mechanics phrases that occur with daily action. Social structures do not determine the rituals but affect the selection of the available repertoire of culturally standardized representations.
Goffman then analyzes a final element: the social widespread status. 4 are most crucial in our society: age group, gender, social class and race. They have common characteristics:
- Form a cross grid on which each individual can be placed with respect to each of the four status;
- Are easy to perceive in all the different social situations by virtue of the brands that our bodies bring with them. The differences that the four status inevitably bring with them are smoothed by the so-called transitions service that operating through:
-the principle of equality
-the principle of courtesy
memo of "THE INTERACTION ORDER American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address ERVING GOFFMAN"
EliminaThe interaction order of public bathrooms, S.E. Cahill
RispondiEliminaThrough this passage, Cahill is trying to distinguish the two different paths of our everyday life. According to his theory (based mostly on what Goffman had already said) every human been tends to be an actor on stage during his daily activities. During the biggest part of the day, the actor moderates his personal emotions and reactions, adopting special characters in front of their audience, like performing at the frontstage. On the other side, backstage (in this case, the public bathrooms) is a protected environment or a shelter, where the actor has the opportunity to release himself , get rid of his "expressive mask", eventually escape from some daily delicate situations that occur at the frontstage, cure himself, emotionally or physically in order to get back to the frontstage, ready to perform again.
The use of stalls is crucial according to Cahills theory. Stalls represent that very protected space (or a shelter) that is mutually respected by the actor and the its entourage. That's why when people who open or try to open the door of the stall, usually apologize for violating the personal space of the actor.
Sometimes though, a conversation between two acquainted actors is not interrupted even if both of them are in their stall "shelter".
Goffman, E. (1982). The Interaction Order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review, 48(1) 1-17.
RispondiEliminaGoffman served as president of the American Sociological Association and apparently, this is one of his speeches in his role as president, probably his last, published just after he died. While reading this article I could not stop noticing that Goffman seems to jump from one to another subtopic and in the end he assumes everything he says makes sense to the reader or listener. He probably spoke for a well-read audience in a certain time as the examples are not completely explained and therefore, difficult to follow. He comes across many timely examples which hardly make sense to contemporary readers unless they studied certain topics in a very thorough way. And as sources are not revealed the text is quite a challenge. The ventilated ideas are closely connected to his final book: Forms of Talk (1981).
In a nutshell, what I think Goffman is trying to say is that social interaction (defined as face-to-face interaction) can be a very good starting point for comparative sociological research and should be studied more explicitly. He names the domain of study 'the interaction order' of which the preferred method is considered to be 'microanalysis'. He follows by exploring and deconstructing its possibilities.
He states that the interaction order works through conventions between people who interact. These actors in the face-to-face interaction may not be aware of these conventions but these are formed by intrinsic normative views upon what seems appropriate to do in social situations. For that the 'order' of the interaction order is made up of two components according to Goffman: Conventions (social contracts) and consensus over these conventions.
The split between the two seems to be due to the fact that the conventions are like general rules in a society, while the consensus upon obeying to or interpreting these rules may vary between social situations. By interaction, non-sensible immaterial concepts are formed while interaction occurs. Gatherings are given meaning by their participants and form into something more than just a dialogue. An actor's status, gender, socialization and more of these socially constructed concepts position the interaction between actors in such a way that the interaction becomes meaningful. Goffman uses the way in which people stand in line as an example of how all these matters influence social interaction and social organization as a whole.
RispondiElimina.
Civil Inattention in Public Places: Normalising Unusual Events through Mobile and Embodied Practices
RispondiEliminaWith this article Haddington et all. intend to build on Goffman's work to study how pedestrians display their orientation to unusual events in public places. It focuses on the mobile and embodied conduct of those passing a smartmob event in which a performing group "froze" in a busy transit hub for four minutes. Personally I have some problems with this smartmob setup part in theisresearch since its staged at a university and the disruption they cause by suddenly all together stop their movement is not as random as it, for example, would have been on a (market)square somewhere in a (buisy) city centre. This would entail totally different results in my opinion. A university is typically a place where people much quicker anticipate on what happens then just in a random street or square.
The results that they draw from their smartmob are rather thin. The fact that they consider the majority of the passers-by to clandestinely gaze at the phenomenon is a rather vague one: you can both state that this is a hidden gaze, but just as easily you could consider those gazes to be a response to a sudden change in the surrounding area (not specifically at the people who stopped, but at the whole scene) to find a new route.