Interaktion und Geschlecht.

by Erving Goffman

"Not then, men and their moments. Rather, moments and their men," writes Erving Goffman in the introduction to his groundbreaking 1967 Interaction Ritual, a study of face-to-face interaction in natural settings, that class of events which occurs during co-presence and by virtue of co-presence. The ultimate behavioral materials are the glances, gestures, positionings, and verbal statements that people continuously feed into situations, whether intended or not. This is an interesting account of daily social interaction viewed with a new perspective for the logic of our behavior in ordinary circumstances.

Genres: Sociology, Psychology, Nonfiction, Anthropology, Philosophy, Social Science, Essays

Paperback

First published January 1, 1967

About the author

Erving Goffman was a Canadian-born American sociologist, social psychologist, and writer, considered by some "the most influential American sociologist of the twentieth century".
In 2007, The Times Higher Education Guide listed him as the sixth most-cited author of books in the humanities and social sciences.
Goffman was the 73rd president of the American Sociological Association. His best-known contribution to social theory is his study of symbolic interaction. This took the form of dramaturgical analysis, beginning with his 1956 book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Goffman's other major works include Asylums (1961), Stigma (1963), Interaction Ritual (1967), Frame Analysis (1974), and Forms of Talk (1981). His major areas of study included the sociology of everyday life, social interaction, the social construction of self, social organization (framing) of experience, and particular elements of social life such as total institutions and stigmas.

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

When we think of rituals we are likely to think of elaborate ceremonies, where each move and interaction has been shaped by centuries of tradition, a kind of dance that the parties to the ceremony play often to signify a rite of passage, a shift from one state to another. Think of rituals like weddings or graduations or retirements. These are not the rituals, however, that are of interest to this book. Rather, Goffman is interested in what might initially appear to be the slightest of interactions between two people, interactions that might appear undeserving of the name ‘ritual’. At least at first glance.

This book takes seriously the idea that we are social animals and so our opinion of our own worth is, if not determined by, at least impacted by the opinions others hold of us.

In a world where each interaction we engage in is capable of adding to or subtracting from our sense of self-worth, we need to be careful who we dance with, whose feet we tread upon as we dance, and follow the various protocols of our dance-card. The problem is that many of the dances we perform have been structured through a lifetime of interactions within our society, so we may not even be aware that we are dancing.

The first chapter in this book considers the role played by ‘face’ in social interactions. He says at one point, “One’s face, then, is a sacred thing, and the expressive order required to sustain it is therefore a ritual one.” (19) This also means that many of the ways we attempt to protect our face are symbolic. Often this involves various means of side-stepping the transgressions we might have made that call our face into question – a particularly ‘boy’ version of these is to pretend the transgression was meant as a joke. But there are, in many social situations, only a limited number of moves one might be able to make given a transgression, and our social standing prior to the transgression will play a large part in determining how our response will be read.

There is a nice part her where he says that there might be a pause by the witnesses to the transgression to see how the transgressor is going to respond before the witnesses will know what their next move might be. There is often a four-part dance that occurs, where there is a challenge by the people witnessing the transgression, then an offering by the transgressor in hope of forgiveness, then the witnesses acceptance and finally an expression of thanks by the transgressor. Except, any step in the dance can be substituted by a misstep, bringing the whole thing crashing down. The problem is that often people go out of their way to ensure that everyone in an interaction gets to save face, but any movement along this dance can put the person moving in danger of losing their own face as what appeared to be a move towards acceptance is snatched away. And so, many of these dance moves involve hints and suggestions, rather than clear and unambiguous statements. All of which reminds me of one of my favourite lines from Evelyn Waugh’s Decline and Fall, that says so much without saying anything at all:

“Your colleague, Captain Grimes, has been convicted before me on evidence that leaves no possibility of his innocence - of a crime (I might almost call it a course of action) which I can neither understand nor excuse. I dare say I need not particularise.”

The problem is that face isn’t the individual thing that you might suppose it to be and so a group of people can lose face due to the actions of one of the members of the group. There are clear power relationships here – where the face or feelings of a subordinate are simply not as important as that of a superordinate and so considerations for their feelings are not as much protected by the group. This is also true with the dedication to supporting a superordinate’s feelings by paying close attention to their conversation, laughing at their jokes, and so on.

All of which means that we need to be careful about who we interact with – and so there are pre-dance rituals that we need to perform before being seen as the sort of people who would interact with ‘them’. I’ve never been good at this – but I put that down to having lived much of my life in Melbourne, being male and having no interest in Australian Rules Football. Something which automatically marks me as not worthy to serve as a legitimate participant in a conversation.

The second chapter is on the difference between deference and demeanor. I think this was my favourite chapter in the book – but I’m not going to cover it in as much depth as the first. Goffman wrote a book called Asylums – like all of the books by him I’ve read, I can’t recommend it too highly. Anyway, this chapter draws on some of his work there. You see, to see how people interact with each other in providing deference to others and in sustaining their own demeanor perhaps the best way to do this is to watch how people who can almost be guaranteed to not follow socially composed structures go about interacting. Patients in the 1950s were generally put into mental institutions because they could not be guaranteed to display either deference or demeanor. That said, one of my favourite lines in this chapter is: “Whatever is in the patient’s mind, the throwing of faeces at an attendant is a use of our ceremonial idiom that is as exquisite in its way as a bow from the waste done with grace and a flourish.” (89)

Again, deference and demeanor may seem like opposites, but they often interact and in ways that we might not immediately recognise as obvious. He makes the point that we defer to those ‘above’ us – and so a doctor might be able to ask a nurse what she did on the weekend, but the nurse be constrained from asking the doctor the same question. But what is also interesting is that the doctor, in his elevated position, may do things that others would never dream of doing – sitting on a desk, throwing rolled up pieces of paper at fellow doctors – while the subordinates in the room would still be expected to defer to them and remain in polite demeanor themselves.

The next chapter is on the role of embarrassment in ritual interactions. As he says at the start of the chapter, “In the popular view it is only natural to be at ease during interaction, embarrassment being a regrettable deviation from the normal state.” (97) but this is often not the case at all. In fact, given the power imbalances and relationships that exist between people in most social situations, displays of some form of embarrassment is almost inevitable and is part of the social rituals that help to show appropriate levels of deference. And as he says, “The fixed smile, the nervous hollow laugh, the busy hands, the downward glance that conceals the expression of the eyes, have become famous as signs of attempting to conceal embarrassment.” (102) But that the intentional embarrassing of people, particularly the young, is an expected stage they are to pass through. “It is no wonder that trial by taunting is a test every young person passes through until he develops a capacity to maintain composure.” (104)

One of the problems, discussed throughout this book, is that people play many roles in social situations, and often the same interactants play different roles in those various little dramas. Which then means that what is completely appropriate behaviour with one person in one setting is completely out of place in another setting – so we defer to someone here, but not there, we lose face if we say this to them here, but not there, and something that is playful in one context is the cause of great embarrassment somewhere else. As Goffman says, “To this extent, embarrassment is not an irrational impulse breaking through socially prescribed behaviour, but part of this orderly behaviour itself.” (111)

I’m going to skip over the next two chapters, and mention the last, which take up half of the book, ‘Where the Action Is”. As he says at one point: “By the term action I mean activities that are consequential, problematic, and undertaken for what is felt to be their own sake.” (185)

A lot of the beginning of this chapter is concerned with discussing gambling and therefore ‘chance-taking’, because, as he says, “Wheresoever action is found, chance-taking is sure to be.” The problem is that bets are curious things. If you are to win a coin one whether you call how it will land, this could mean nothing to you at all, or you might need to win the coin so as to be able to contact a lover before she leaves for good or anything in between. Of course, the toss of a coin might be symbolic of something else entirely, worth infinitely more than the coin’s monetary value itself. Which brings us to risk – because action is a kind of risk, a placing of oneself in a situation where there is some form of risk taking. And this implies placing oneself in relation to fate. And while we generally gasp in awe at those who take on the fates and win – as the book Fooled by Randomness makes clear, often this is merely a matter of survivor bias – where luck is confused with merit and merit with justice.

Not that all of life is a kind of risk-taking – in fact, a large part of life is actively doing the opposite – buying insurance, bringing up a family, seeking security. But both of these can be aspects of the one person, who works as an accountant during the week and climbs a cliff-face on the weekend. And as Goffman also makes clear, risky behaviours and occupations often encourage the risk taker to develop a series of superstitious behaviours to appease whichever gods are involved in marking success and failure.

But he next moves away from consequential action takers and discusses ‘safe’ forms of action – like “The ‘vertigo’ rides at fairs and amusement parks nakedly resolve our dilemma concerning action by providing danger that is guaranteed to be really not dangerous.” (196)

Real action, he points out, “in our Western culture seems to belong to the cult of masculinity” (209) and this is interesting because the then presents an example after example of men risking life and limb to prove their manhood. Bull fighters, racing car drivers and so on. But proofs of manhood are often steps towards getting sex – he talks of how, at a casino, a man giving advice to a woman on how to gamble might be an implied and accepted means towards a sexual advance. That said, it might also be a source of ‘trouble’, intended or otherwise.

These risky moments are more than a mere episode in our lives, but ways in which we may confirm our worth and character to others and even to ourselves. In fact, although they are likely to be fleeting moments, we and others are likely to extrapolate them out to form the basis for their near total judgement of our character. Consequential gambles, indeed. Composure, self-control, cool-headedness under pressure – action provides the scene, our character provides the response. He makes an interesting comparison to this in giving us a justification for high-stakes tests – where “one’s test score depends on mobilizing memory and knowledge under pressure and then fashioning an orderly comprehensive answer in less than comfortable time; the opposite of what is sometimes called ‘blocking’” (225)

One of the odd things here, as I’m already mentioned, is that a single example of our character is often defined as being definitive. And so, the person who freezes in a bank robbery and the person who chaises the robber out of the bank and down the street are understood to be different in kind – but, in fact, might well act in opposite ways on another day. Goffman also talks extensively on how one’s character can be lost – a jockey who can no longer ride after a fall, not from a physical injury, but out of confidence.

One of my favourite lines in this book is in a footnote, “Tellers have foiled bank robberies by simply refusing to take seriously the threat-note to them by would-be armed robbers.” (243) Not least because once I went into a bank and filled in a withdrawal form. When I handed it to the teller she asked me if I had written anything on the back of the form. I answered that I hadn’t realised I was meant to. She smiled and passed it back to me, it read, ‘hand me all your money’ or something like that. I couldn’t help thinking, after I left the bank, how badly that might have turned out if I was upset or annoyed when I went into the bank – “what’s her bloody problem? For Christ’s sake…”

The book ends by discussing a couple of my favourite themes, time and vicarious experience. The thing about risk is that it is not only done in time, but given so much of what we do in life is a kind of slow drudge, risk heightens our awareness of time. And what else can ‘living for the weekend’ mean unless the ‘weekend’ is able to be differentiated from the rest of the week?

But that difference might simply be going to the movies to watch the latest James Bond film – where we watch and identify with the hero as he risks it all, and ultimately wins – and this is not too different from the fair rides that provide ‘risks’ we already know we will live through. This is the commodification of action – action that literally can be bought at the time of our choosing and can be experienced by our mirror neurons, rather than by our intestinal fortitude.

I really liked this book – seriously interesting stuff.

[Sencer Turunç · Rating 5 out of 5]

Toplumsal etkileşimdeki ritüel unsurlara dikkat çeken Goffman, öncelikle şunu belirtiyor:
"Etkileşimlerimizin ara yüzü; insan yüzü kutsal bir şeydir ve sürdürülmesi gereken anlamlı düzen tam da bu yüzden ritüel düzenidir."

İnsanın bir gel-git hali var; sosyal karşılaşmaların ortaya çıkardığı tehlikeler ve yalnızlığın getirdiği güven arasında bir yalpalama hali söz konusu... Bunun üstesinden gelmek üzere kurgulanmış evrensel bir araca, selamlaşma kurgusuna bakarken, aslında "insan doğası" denen mefhumun o kadar insani olmadığı da düşünülebiliyor.

Gündelik hayatın basit ritüelleri, bir isyan, bir mücadele alanına da kolayca dönüşebilen alanlar. Burada sinsice bir isyan kopabilir. Örneğin, beklenen bir hürmet tavrının bariz biçimde gösterilmemesi çoğu zaman bir başkaldırının ortaya çıkmakta olduğunu gösterir.

Kutsala hürmetsizlik her an ortaya çıkabilir, kutsal kendi tekinsizliğini içinde barındırır; bir dini tören bir şeytana tapınma ayinine dönüşebilir. Ya da bir düğün bir katliama... (Red Wedding'i hatırlayalım ve Robb Stark'ın toprağı bol olsun diyerek devam edelim.)

Etkileşimler yabancılaşmaları da ortaya çıkarır. Her konuşma, kendine özgü müstakil bir varlığa sahiptir. Kendi adına talepleri vardır. Konuşma, küçük bir toplumsal sistem kurar ve orada sınırlarını muhafaza etme eğilimine girer. Kendi kahramanları ve hainleri olan ufak bir bağlılık ve sadakat toprağıdır. (Gibi'de Yılmaz ve İlkkan'ın arabanın içinde mısır yiyerek hain Dayı'dan kurtulma planı yaptıkları sahne geliyor aklıma:)))

Etkileşime girildiğinde, kişilerin elinde ortama uygun ve konuşulacak bazı konuların olması ve bu konuların sohbeti sürdürmeye yetecek kadar bir muhtevaya sahip olması gerekir; yani sağlam bir sohbet kaynağı gerekir. "Havadan sudan sohbet etmek" dediğimiz şey bu amaca hizmet eder. İnsanlar muhabbet konusunu tükettiklerinde, kendilerini resmen hakkında konuşulacak hiç bir şeyin kalmadığı bir konuşma hali içinde bulurlar; "zahmetli bir sessizlik" şekline yaşanan etkileşimle meşgul olma hali, bu durumun tipik bir sonucudur.

Demeden geçmek istemiyorum: Her ne kadar zahmetli olsa da Goffman ismini görünce işi gücü bırakıp okuyasım geliyor.

[Anastasia · Rating 3 out of 5]

(3,5*)
Easy to read and understand, enriched with many real-life examples, analyzes sociological aspects of people's interaction from many angles. Useful not only for those interested in the field of sociology but whoever wants to study and learn more about the human nature, actions and behaviors within the modern societies. Still, maybe some of the "points" mentioned, refer more to social conditions that have nowadays changed.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Don't let the 5-star rating get you too eager to read this. It is dry and dense. But that is Erving Goffman for you - he won't add a single sentence that isn't packed with relevance. Not recommended for anyone who doesn't want to feel like a predictable animal.

[Sunny · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fairly interesting book. The book is about the face to face rituals we inadvertently slip into when we are put into various different social situations. It reminded me of Gestalt psychology in many places as a theme overall but some of Erving’s insights are quite interesting. There is a section in the middle of the book which I just skimmed through about gambling and the psychological intricacies and rituals that go on with that, which I just found a little boring as I’m not interested in gambling in the least. Erving talks in one place about being flustered and how at times we are required to maintain a degree of decorum in the face of overwhelming odds. Many examples are given of people who in the face of certain death have managed to sink calmly with their sinking ship. He uses examples from many different parts of one’s life such as exams. Often the exam result is not the most important thing in the long run, what is more important, and this certainly applies to me, is the way in which we are able to carry ourselves in those exams and how we are able to deal with pressure to deliver a good piece of work in a short space of time. I have often contemplated the importance of going to university. I certainly remember diddly squat from my Economics degree from UCL. This point made me realise that the exams themselves, the culmination of 3 / 4 years of hard work and the way that students are able to perform under the intense pressures is very character forming / destroying and truly testing at times, the experience of which we can use in the future. A good book to read overall although I should add that I sometimes don’t find Erving’s writing style that easy to read. The individual sentences make sense but when you put them together somehow (maybe it's my lack of brain cells) but I can’t always fathom the points he is trying to make.

[Jesse · Rating 5 out of 5]

describes certain rules that even those who scorn society are likely to respect. also a good manual for social skills

[Campbell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating book, each essay focuses on particular aspects of interactions and presentation of self, which, while unique, are pretty coherent when put together. ‘Where The Action Is’ was particularly interesting, looking at how risk taking and chance is used in the projection of character, and how mass culture provides for ‘vicarious’ channels to do so.
It is quite universal despite most examples being concrete and personal.

[jeanne · Rating 2 out of 5]

oui je suis aigrie mais y a pas à croire qu’on a inventé l’eau chaude comme ça

[Tara Brabazon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Originally published in 1967, Routledge created a new edition of this book in 2017. This book has survived well through time. The concept of "face-work" remains strong, exploring how interactions are opportunities to improve social standing.

In my re-reading of the book after a couple of decades, I was impressed by the attention to "internal consistency." Also of incredible value is the discussion of the "vocabulary of embarrassment." The configuration of embarrassment as "unfulfilled expectations" can be the foundation for future work.

[Psychön von Reznhör · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The rules of conduct which bind the actor and the recipient together are the bindings of society. But many of the acts which are guided by these rules occur infrequently or take a long time for their consummation. Opportunities to affirm the moral order and the society could therefore be rare. It is here that ceremonial rules play their social function, for many of the acts which are guided by these rules last but a brief moment, involve no substantive outlay, and can be performed in every social interaction. Whatever the activity and however profanely instrumental, it can afford many opportunities for minor ceremonies as long as other persons are present. Through these observances, guided by ceremonial obligations and expectations, a constant flow of indulgences is spread through society, with others who are present constantly reminding the individual that he must keep himself together as a well demeaned person and affirm the sacred quality of these others. The gestures which we sometimes call empty are perhaps in fact the fullest things of all."

[Chris Beiser · Rating 3 out of 5]

at times incredible, but at least for me, seemed to lose steam around halfway through

[Nan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some essays are so theoretical. Some others are so secular. This makes the reading confusing at times, or makes it hard to find the bond among chapters. But in the end, one understands that it's not the society nor the individual where we should take sides with, but right in the middle.

[Ethan Rogers · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are someone for whom social interaction is often utterly perplexing (i.e. a sociologist) this set of scholarly essays can be kind of calming. I felt reassured reading this that conversation is a team effort and that other people usually work together to make it work and to avoid threats to face. The short essays on face work, embarrassment, and alienation were my favorites.

[Siri · Rating 3 out of 5]

The last part of this book is the essential part of the book.

[Milena · Rating 3 out of 5]

Grundlagentext, interessant zu lesen, an einigen Stellen aber aus heutiger Perspektive veraltet bzw. aus feministischer Sicht zu kritisieren.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Goffman's writings on the workings of the interaction order are deservedly classics, and are immensely readable. They still have a lot to offer, though it can't be denied they are of their time.

[Dmitry Dyatlov · Rating 3 out of 5]

three stars based on 10 pages read. I'll come back to this when I can't sleep. Or I need the cliff notes. or something.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm pretty sure this book is extremely clever however it was a bit over my head intellectually which does make it slightly harder to say such things for sure.

[Francesca La Greca · Rating 2 out of 5]

no comment. interesting book, could have been better if there weren’t all those slurs and not-so-veiled misogyny

[^Mak_Enon5 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite the short time given to read the book for the purpose of my class analysis on journal article, I appreciated the detail observation and analysis from Goffman and how he carefully define each situation and emotions involved in social interaction. I'll admit I skipped some pages due to its meticulous explanation on something that I'll understand in a whoop should Goffman just put down his linguistic scalpel and give my brain a rest. I enjoy the reading of this book, however, I noticed that Goffman's voice is quite pessimitic due to his focus in "losing face". Overall, it is a book worth for you to read, again.

[Ггг Ггг · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was assigned a portion of this book to read during graduate school. Finally, over a decade later I went back and read the entire thing.

It's definitely an interesting book. Symbolic interactionism, OTOH, I find to be a very limited research program for understanding the world.

[Clay · Rating 5 out of 5]

There's an essay here called "Embarrassment and Social Organization." Aren't you curious?