Goffman's view of the 'self' as a 'peg on which roles were momentarily hung' stuck in my head after viewing the lecture, I found this interesting as I come home from uni, change clothes and thus change roles as I go to work. The roles I carry out at work are only for the set amount of hours I am there and then these roles are taken away again. The reading explained this concept in more depth as it outlined the obligations I take on as I take up a certain role, I am there to serve customers and my obligation becomes another persons expectation. All this however is momentary and these obligations and expectations change as I change roles when I go home or go to university.
An interesting part of this discussion of how the 'self' should act and what roles are taken in certain environments is when these roles overlap each other. For instance, work functions are notorious for individuals not knowing how to act when their roles are blurred, this can lead to a 'loss of face'.
As it seems as though all these rules and guidelines for how we act are restricting what we do and say. Goffman outlines these obligations and expectations of individuals as brief moments that involve little to no substance, they serve to define moral and social order and create a flow in society. "The gestures which we call empty are perhaps in fact the fullest things of all" (Goffman 1967).
In further reading of presentation of the self I read an article 'Karen McCullagh (2008): Blogging: self presentation and privacy' which I thought was quite appropriate in reference to the task of blogging online. It outlines the way in which individuals can change their self presentation through the medium of blogging as the expectations that they might have in everyday life, change once logged on to the internet.
References
Karen McCullagh (2008): Blogging: self presentation and privacy, Information & Communications Technology Law, 17:1, 3-23
Karen McCullagh (2008): Blogging: self presentation and privacy, Information & Communications Technology Law, 17:1, 3-23
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.
Great post Josh - the McCullagh source is a very interesting one.
ReplyDeleteSocial order is produced by the ‘rules’ in life. These rules guide our behaviour and our knowledge of societal expectations. For example, when walking in an elevator, it is socially acceptable to stand at the opposite corner of the person standing in the elevator, not right next to them, otherwise the situation becomes awkward for everyone in the elevator because it is like you’re messing with the social order. Another example is driving on the left hand side of the road. If one car decided to drive on the right hand side, then that would likely cause a car accident and it would mess with the social order. Josh used public toilets as an example of social order-you walk to the toilet which is at the far end of the other person’s cubicle. It made me think of other instances in everyday life, like queuing in the shops or for a bus.
ReplyDeleteAs Garfinkel argues, games have a time structure and the players know what it will take for the game to be complete. When you play a game, you are expected to follow the rules. Garfinkel argues that, similarly, in everyday life you are expected to follow rules of social interaction and social order. For example, when someone says “hello”, they expect the other person to say hi back, otherwise it becomes really awkward. Garfinkel’s breaching experiments demonstrate this point really well. For example, when one student’s husband said that he was tired and she questioned him further, “how are you tired? Physically, mentally or just bored?” and he got frustrated. He had expected his wife to know what he was talking about without further questioning it. Josh also tried this experiment on his sister, asking her more questions than what she thought was necessary and she also got frustrated.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete