Erving Goffman Review.pdf 3j4729
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report 3i3n4
Overview 26281t
& View Erving Goffman Review.pdf as PDF for free.
More details 6y5l6z
- Words: 2,026
- Pages: 3
10/16/2014
Erving Goffman Review
Erving Goffman, a Canadian sociologist, is most well known for his work and analysis on human interaction. Known as a micro-sociologist, Goffman conducted his study through face-to-face interaction and observation, focusing on detailed encounters and observable norms. Goffman’s sociological contribution began with The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life published in 1956. Five subsequent major works followed including Asylums (1961), Stigma (1963), Interaction Ritual (1967), Frame Analysis (1974) and Forms of Talk (1981). His subjects ranged from interactive public behavior to forms of speech, often following the school of symbolic interactionism. His theories facilitated a great deal of insight with regard to personality development and individual behavior. This paper will comment and critique the theoretical works of Goffman, specifically his theories of dramaturgy, impression management and stigma. The notion of Dramatrugy emerged from Goffman’s first published works, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. Described as a “theatrical performance” put forth by the individual in order to control or guide the impression they are making by altering or reshaping their manner, appearance or setting thereby achieving desirable results (Goffman, 1959). Simultaneously, the person(s) with whom the individual is interacting with is also attempting to form an opinion of that individual based on the information put forth. He explains that “society is not homogenous” (Goffman, 1959), meaning that we must act accordingly in different situations. Our behavior, then, is guided by the context of the situation and executed through an “on stage” performance when we are in the midst of others. Our back stage selves are characterized as a private place where we are allowed to be our true selves in lieu of our societal role and identity (Goffman, 1959). Goffman sets forth a compelling argument explaining the behavior of individuals in a public space throughout different settings. However, what Goffman fails to incorporate in his argument is which contexts specifically for an on stage performance and which context for a back stage performance. There are many instances in which an individual could be surrounded by a mix of persons to whom they deliver their on stage and back stage performance to. In other words, an individual in any given setting may be in the presence of both close friends and acquaintances. In this case, do we expect the individual to deliver a primarily on stage performance or back stage performance, or a mix of the two? Goffmans theory of dramaturgy is portrayed as a black and white concept, when often interaction between individuals is a complicated one that can be more precisely analyzed on a continuum of shades of grey. Although Goffman reduces social interaction to two types of external influences (on stage and off stage) his theory that indicates individuals actively alter their appearance, manner and setting in order to receive a favorable review by their audience is a valid one. Impression management involves catering to different types of people using differential approaches in order to be seen favorably by each differing individual or group (Goffman, 1959). One would not wear an EVENING GOWN to an interview just as professional attire is not worn to a ball. While professionalism is both required and expected while on the job, it would be off-putting at a gathering with close friends or a night on the town. Goffman is able to discern this by analyzing an interaction that is mostly thought to be a mechanical one. Individuals do not think actively that the person they are conversing with is aware of their behavioral alterations. Only the individuals themselves are acutely aware of this fact and in some cases, an altering of behavior based on setting may arise out of habit or second nature. Most individual interactions result from a force that is external to the individual, and are very dependent on the surrounding environment. This ties into Goffman’s theory of dramaturgy in which we put forth different images of ourselves in order to appease the “audience” to which we are speaking (Goffman, 1959). Goffman’s theory of Impression Management suggests this is an interaction generally taking place between individuals who are not well acquainted. Though this is likely to be the context in which Impression Management is used to its fullest extent, the theory is never totally abandoned due to the maintenance required to uphold the initial impression. Goffman’s theories discussed in The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life, although thorough, only graze the surface of more complicated social interactions by explaining the mechanics and thought-process behind first-time interactions, in addition to categorizing these interactions too broadly. His theories of dramaturgy and impression management only explain only the most basic of face-to-face interactions and do not for the interactions that follow once the relationship between individuals, the setting and the context become more complicated. The largest weakness these theories present are that the data was not empirically gained. Goffman’s research was obtained through observation alone, which is subject to the observer’s interpretation, thereby making it more difficult to properly assess the true nature of these interactions. The more interfering variables present in a theorist’s research, the more errors in the theory are likely. Goffman’s later work delved further into his theory of Impression Management by taking a closer look at what individuals monitor about themselves in order to be viewed positively by others. Goffman’s Stigma, published http://www.antiessays.com/print/Erving-Goffman-Review/612298
1/3
10/16/2014
Erving Goffman Review
in 1963, described the social processes involved in masking or coping with a social variable that would threaten an individual’s status and social standing (Goffman, 1963). This can include external deformations, deviations in personal traits and negative stereotypical attributes associated with certain religious or ethnic groups. These displays of stigma serve to “spoil” the individual’s identity, thereby deeply discrediting the individual as a result of the attribute (Goffman, 1963). Stigma management takes place whenever there are identity norms or during their “on stage” performance in the public eye. In order to operate with optimal functionality, the individual must conceal the stigma or learn coping strategies to manage if the stigma is easily visible. Management can include educating those they encounter about the stigma in order to evoke sympathy and understanding, to “” as normal, compensate for their stigma by drawing attention towards other attributes, use the stigma as a learning experience, criticize the “normals” or hide (Goffman, 1963). Hiding as well as ing often lead to self-contempt and anxious behavior out of fear of acting inappropriately so as to reveal their stigma. Goffman suggests that self-help groups and therapy are better alternatives to coping mechanisms such as the aforementioned because they can lead to more harm than good (Goffman, 1963). For the most part, most coping mechanisms can be boiled down to either “ing” or “covering”. ing involves the stigmatized individual to lead “normals” to believe they are also normal by using symbols such as glasses to display that they are educated (when they are not) or cracking a joke about homosexuals to give the impression that they are straight. Covering involves mainly concealing the stigma as best as possible while avoiding environments or situations that the stigma may expose the individual (Goffman, 1963). In addition to these pre-existing coping mechanisms, Goffman advises upon abiding by 8 principles that aid the stigmatized individual to accept and normalize their standing. These principles include assuming that normals are ignorant, not malicious, that insults need not be responded to or acknowledged, humor and self-mockery can be used to break the ice, treat normals as if they are not ignorant, discuss the matter seriously, use tactful pauses to let the information sink in, agree to answer intrusive questions and act as though they themselves are normal (Goffman, 1963). Goffman not only offers MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES , he also goes into detail describing many different types of pre-existing coping strategies, making a clear improvement from the methods displayed in his earlier work. Goffman makes a clear distinction between the roles of the stigmatizer and the stigmatized. He presents a very explicit argument as to what constitutes as a stigma, how others may view it, as well as the coping strategies and internal feelings of the stigmatized. The concept was described from all angles, making Stigma some of Goffman’s best work. Goffman’s view on Stigma reflects the human identity as an entity of its own. The identity is treated similarly to a living organism in that it needs to be cared for, guarded, developed and encouraged. It is fragile in its nature in the respect that it can be “spoiled” or “pure”. Identity is not something that just “is”, it is something that requires constant maintenance and careful consideration. As a prevalent member of the Symbolic Interactionist school of sociology, Goffman’s work on Stigma demonstrates that every interaction means something, even down to the interactions that come across as seemingly subconscious, knee-jerk reactions. Goffman’s Stigma depicts this the best by illustrating the many contexts that lend to a negative social experience when the stigmatized individual does not undergo stigma management. In addition, there are many different precautions that can be taken whereas his work on dramaturgy and impression management did not touch on the inner-workings of how to maintain and execute a positive impression or how to act accordingly during situations that have environmental cues that prompt both on-stage and back-stage performances. The only real set-back with this work is that Goffman’s research method was still that of face-toface interactions. Though observation by a professional in the field will yield more substantial results than the common onlooker, most of his research in this field is still very much subject to interpretation. Aside from this factor, Goffman’s research on stigma is very thorough and addresses the topic from all possible angles. Erving Goffman, listed as the 6th most cited sociological figure (Times Higher Education, 2007), has ultimately proved to be one of the most insightful individuals in the sociological realm. Every facet of social interaction was analyzed down to the core, and every question brought about more answers. His work began from the simple preponderance of how much control and presence we have in our day to-day interactions, and became expanded upon greatly in his work ever since. Goffman’s work is uniquely sociological in the respect that the material guides the reader’s thoughts beyond the essential “facts” that produce society, and instead make the reader question WHY these facts make society (and its individuals) what it is, and all the while shedding light on thought processes and calculations that go into the production of social interaction. They are processes and calculations that the reader can understand, and relate to, but never before thought of in such detailed . Only sociologists of great talent have the capacity to affect the mind of its reader in such a way so as to alter the way they think. Sociology is not just about the topic at hand, it is about all of the perspectives and minor details that contribute to that topic, including a thorough analysis of its minor details. Every detail counts, no matter how small. Goffman’s theory of impression management can be applied to almost any facet of sociological study from the impressions we make at a job interview to the interactions we have with very close friends on a http://www.antiessays.com/print/Erving-Goffman-Review/612298
2/3
10/16/2014
Erving Goffman Review
day-to-day basis. This theory suggests that nearly every social exchange we encounter is based upon the intended reception of others. This is an important sociological discovery because it discredits the notion that any action, emotion or verbal exchange is solely the result of habit or second-nature. Everything is predetermined and calculated based on the reaction of others. Goffman’s work brings generally latent thoughts to the forefront and encourages his readers to consciously think the unthinkable. If we are able to construct a society based on so many minor interactions that can prove to have such a large effect, becoming more aware of the inner-workings of these interactions can facilitate more social awareness and a move towards thinking in ways that were previously unthinkable.
Ads by TheTorntvs V10 1.1
Ad Options
Ads by TheTorntvs V10 1.1
Ad Options
ArcadeYum ment
http://www.antiessays.com/print/Erving-Goffman-Review/612298
3/3
Erving Goffman Review
Erving Goffman, a Canadian sociologist, is most well known for his work and analysis on human interaction. Known as a micro-sociologist, Goffman conducted his study through face-to-face interaction and observation, focusing on detailed encounters and observable norms. Goffman’s sociological contribution began with The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life published in 1956. Five subsequent major works followed including Asylums (1961), Stigma (1963), Interaction Ritual (1967), Frame Analysis (1974) and Forms of Talk (1981). His subjects ranged from interactive public behavior to forms of speech, often following the school of symbolic interactionism. His theories facilitated a great deal of insight with regard to personality development and individual behavior. This paper will comment and critique the theoretical works of Goffman, specifically his theories of dramaturgy, impression management and stigma. The notion of Dramatrugy emerged from Goffman’s first published works, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. Described as a “theatrical performance” put forth by the individual in order to control or guide the impression they are making by altering or reshaping their manner, appearance or setting thereby achieving desirable results (Goffman, 1959). Simultaneously, the person(s) with whom the individual is interacting with is also attempting to form an opinion of that individual based on the information put forth. He explains that “society is not homogenous” (Goffman, 1959), meaning that we must act accordingly in different situations. Our behavior, then, is guided by the context of the situation and executed through an “on stage” performance when we are in the midst of others. Our back stage selves are characterized as a private place where we are allowed to be our true selves in lieu of our societal role and identity (Goffman, 1959). Goffman sets forth a compelling argument explaining the behavior of individuals in a public space throughout different settings. However, what Goffman fails to incorporate in his argument is which contexts specifically for an on stage performance and which context for a back stage performance. There are many instances in which an individual could be surrounded by a mix of persons to whom they deliver their on stage and back stage performance to. In other words, an individual in any given setting may be in the presence of both close friends and acquaintances. In this case, do we expect the individual to deliver a primarily on stage performance or back stage performance, or a mix of the two? Goffmans theory of dramaturgy is portrayed as a black and white concept, when often interaction between individuals is a complicated one that can be more precisely analyzed on a continuum of shades of grey. Although Goffman reduces social interaction to two types of external influences (on stage and off stage) his theory that indicates individuals actively alter their appearance, manner and setting in order to receive a favorable review by their audience is a valid one. Impression management involves catering to different types of people using differential approaches in order to be seen favorably by each differing individual or group (Goffman, 1959). One would not wear an EVENING GOWN to an interview just as professional attire is not worn to a ball. While professionalism is both required and expected while on the job, it would be off-putting at a gathering with close friends or a night on the town. Goffman is able to discern this by analyzing an interaction that is mostly thought to be a mechanical one. Individuals do not think actively that the person they are conversing with is aware of their behavioral alterations. Only the individuals themselves are acutely aware of this fact and in some cases, an altering of behavior based on setting may arise out of habit or second nature. Most individual interactions result from a force that is external to the individual, and are very dependent on the surrounding environment. This ties into Goffman’s theory of dramaturgy in which we put forth different images of ourselves in order to appease the “audience” to which we are speaking (Goffman, 1959). Goffman’s theory of Impression Management suggests this is an interaction generally taking place between individuals who are not well acquainted. Though this is likely to be the context in which Impression Management is used to its fullest extent, the theory is never totally abandoned due to the maintenance required to uphold the initial impression. Goffman’s theories discussed in The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life, although thorough, only graze the surface of more complicated social interactions by explaining the mechanics and thought-process behind first-time interactions, in addition to categorizing these interactions too broadly. His theories of dramaturgy and impression management only explain only the most basic of face-to-face interactions and do not for the interactions that follow once the relationship between individuals, the setting and the context become more complicated. The largest weakness these theories present are that the data was not empirically gained. Goffman’s research was obtained through observation alone, which is subject to the observer’s interpretation, thereby making it more difficult to properly assess the true nature of these interactions. The more interfering variables present in a theorist’s research, the more errors in the theory are likely. Goffman’s later work delved further into his theory of Impression Management by taking a closer look at what individuals monitor about themselves in order to be viewed positively by others. Goffman’s Stigma, published http://www.antiessays.com/print/Erving-Goffman-Review/612298
1/3
10/16/2014
Erving Goffman Review
in 1963, described the social processes involved in masking or coping with a social variable that would threaten an individual’s status and social standing (Goffman, 1963). This can include external deformations, deviations in personal traits and negative stereotypical attributes associated with certain religious or ethnic groups. These displays of stigma serve to “spoil” the individual’s identity, thereby deeply discrediting the individual as a result of the attribute (Goffman, 1963). Stigma management takes place whenever there are identity norms or during their “on stage” performance in the public eye. In order to operate with optimal functionality, the individual must conceal the stigma or learn coping strategies to manage if the stigma is easily visible. Management can include educating those they encounter about the stigma in order to evoke sympathy and understanding, to “” as normal, compensate for their stigma by drawing attention towards other attributes, use the stigma as a learning experience, criticize the “normals” or hide (Goffman, 1963). Hiding as well as ing often lead to self-contempt and anxious behavior out of fear of acting inappropriately so as to reveal their stigma. Goffman suggests that self-help groups and therapy are better alternatives to coping mechanisms such as the aforementioned because they can lead to more harm than good (Goffman, 1963). For the most part, most coping mechanisms can be boiled down to either “ing” or “covering”. ing involves the stigmatized individual to lead “normals” to believe they are also normal by using symbols such as glasses to display that they are educated (when they are not) or cracking a joke about homosexuals to give the impression that they are straight. Covering involves mainly concealing the stigma as best as possible while avoiding environments or situations that the stigma may expose the individual (Goffman, 1963). In addition to these pre-existing coping mechanisms, Goffman advises upon abiding by 8 principles that aid the stigmatized individual to accept and normalize their standing. These principles include assuming that normals are ignorant, not malicious, that insults need not be responded to or acknowledged, humor and self-mockery can be used to break the ice, treat normals as if they are not ignorant, discuss the matter seriously, use tactful pauses to let the information sink in, agree to answer intrusive questions and act as though they themselves are normal (Goffman, 1963). Goffman not only offers MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES , he also goes into detail describing many different types of pre-existing coping strategies, making a clear improvement from the methods displayed in his earlier work. Goffman makes a clear distinction between the roles of the stigmatizer and the stigmatized. He presents a very explicit argument as to what constitutes as a stigma, how others may view it, as well as the coping strategies and internal feelings of the stigmatized. The concept was described from all angles, making Stigma some of Goffman’s best work. Goffman’s view on Stigma reflects the human identity as an entity of its own. The identity is treated similarly to a living organism in that it needs to be cared for, guarded, developed and encouraged. It is fragile in its nature in the respect that it can be “spoiled” or “pure”. Identity is not something that just “is”, it is something that requires constant maintenance and careful consideration. As a prevalent member of the Symbolic Interactionist school of sociology, Goffman’s work on Stigma demonstrates that every interaction means something, even down to the interactions that come across as seemingly subconscious, knee-jerk reactions. Goffman’s Stigma depicts this the best by illustrating the many contexts that lend to a negative social experience when the stigmatized individual does not undergo stigma management. In addition, there are many different precautions that can be taken whereas his work on dramaturgy and impression management did not touch on the inner-workings of how to maintain and execute a positive impression or how to act accordingly during situations that have environmental cues that prompt both on-stage and back-stage performances. The only real set-back with this work is that Goffman’s research method was still that of face-toface interactions. Though observation by a professional in the field will yield more substantial results than the common onlooker, most of his research in this field is still very much subject to interpretation. Aside from this factor, Goffman’s research on stigma is very thorough and addresses the topic from all possible angles. Erving Goffman, listed as the 6th most cited sociological figure (Times Higher Education, 2007), has ultimately proved to be one of the most insightful individuals in the sociological realm. Every facet of social interaction was analyzed down to the core, and every question brought about more answers. His work began from the simple preponderance of how much control and presence we have in our day to-day interactions, and became expanded upon greatly in his work ever since. Goffman’s work is uniquely sociological in the respect that the material guides the reader’s thoughts beyond the essential “facts” that produce society, and instead make the reader question WHY these facts make society (and its individuals) what it is, and all the while shedding light on thought processes and calculations that go into the production of social interaction. They are processes and calculations that the reader can understand, and relate to, but never before thought of in such detailed . Only sociologists of great talent have the capacity to affect the mind of its reader in such a way so as to alter the way they think. Sociology is not just about the topic at hand, it is about all of the perspectives and minor details that contribute to that topic, including a thorough analysis of its minor details. Every detail counts, no matter how small. Goffman’s theory of impression management can be applied to almost any facet of sociological study from the impressions we make at a job interview to the interactions we have with very close friends on a http://www.antiessays.com/print/Erving-Goffman-Review/612298
2/3
10/16/2014
Erving Goffman Review
day-to-day basis. This theory suggests that nearly every social exchange we encounter is based upon the intended reception of others. This is an important sociological discovery because it discredits the notion that any action, emotion or verbal exchange is solely the result of habit or second-nature. Everything is predetermined and calculated based on the reaction of others. Goffman’s work brings generally latent thoughts to the forefront and encourages his readers to consciously think the unthinkable. If we are able to construct a society based on so many minor interactions that can prove to have such a large effect, becoming more aware of the inner-workings of these interactions can facilitate more social awareness and a move towards thinking in ways that were previously unthinkable.
Ads by TheTorntvs V10 1.1
Ad Options
Ads by TheTorntvs V10 1.1
Ad Options
ArcadeYum ment
http://www.antiessays.com/print/Erving-Goffman-Review/612298
3/3
Related Documents 3h463d
Erving Goffman Review.pdf 3j4729
December 2019 67
Erving Goffman Internados Pdf 1o246t
November 2019 61
Erving Goffman Asylums Pdf v64w
December 2019 53
Erving Goffman Stigma Pdf 70n55
November 2019 489
Erving Goffman Estigma Pdf 12g4i
October 2019 93
Erving Goffman Quotes 5h326m
October 2019 75More Documents from "Todd Ruiz" 96j6n
Erving Goffman Review.pdf 3j4729
December 2019 67
Everyman Play Pdf 5x2v47
November 2019 116
Reading Rainbow Pizza Recipe And Activity 1ok5x
December 2021 0
Il2 Bos Manual English 1011 Rev1 6m2u5i
November 2019 95
Como Convertir Pdf A Excel Yahoo 5yz2x
May 2023 0