Blog #2 Soc 250

Blog #2

In this week’s reading Goffman examines the performances in which individuals undertake in everyday life. Individuals create a personal front through various settings, appearances, and manners. Each individual creates this ‘front’ through various means such as clothing, speech, mannerisms, etc. and these individual actors can dramatize their performances in ways that help them achieve their desired outcome.  Each individual has a front stage (where they behave in a way that portrays them in the way they wish to be seen) and a back stage (how they behave when they are in private and no one can see them).  Robert Brown takes this theory of dramaturgy and applies it to the political realm in the United States.

Brown argues that the entire political sphere today can be viewed from Goffman’s dramaturgical scope.  How potential political figures dress, speak, and how they behave during their front stage time all impact whether or not they will be elected.  They have to create an image of the self in which they wish to portray to the audience (the voters) and hope that they perform well enough to convince them that they are in fact what they are trying to portray.  Every act of running for presidency must be carefully staged and scripted from pep rallies to fund raisers.  If a candidate strays away from this script they may destroy the perception of their self that they were trying to create. 

I agree with Brown’s assertion that one can apply the theory of dramaturgy to the behavior of presidential candidates.  It is fascinating and terrifying to ponder how much of what they’re saying is an act in a well-staged play or how they genuinely feel.  I would hope that at least some of what they are preaching reflects their own genuine beliefs and not just a tactic to win the support of the audience. 

Reference:

Brown, R., “Acting Presidential: The Dramaturgy of Bush Versus Kerry.” American Behavioral Scientist Vol. 49 2005 pp. 78-92.

Blog #1

In this week’s reading Goffman focuses on the roles of deference and demeanor in micro interaction; deference is the act in which individuals interact via the exchange of “promises” with one another and demeanor is the way in which an individual presents themselves to society.  Both deference and demeanor can be symmetrical (where both individuals are social equals) or asymmetrical (where the individuals are not on the same social level.)  This hierarchy of social level plays a role in the interaction that will occur.  Brian Colwell takes this ideal further as he separates the interaction between inmates into two categories: deference (behavior based on actors by rank of power and prestige) and respect (behavior rooted in perceived similarities and differences between actors.)  Colwell argues that this separation between deference and respect allows actors to acknowledge the value of other actors, while at the same time maintaining the social hierarchy. 

In his study of California prison inmates he discovered that subjects were more likely to act favorably towards other inmates who had qualities that they perceived similar to their own, regardless of that inmate’s social level.  In this situation the ideal of respect would overcome the norm restraints of asymmetrical deference.  For example, an inmate may be of a lower social level in prison but if that particular inmate went to church for 15 years with other inmates of a higher social level, the inmates from the higher social level would treat the inmate from the lower social level more favorably due to that common interest regardless of their superior status.  Drawing from Durkheim, Colwell equates deference to dealing with the “profane” and respect in dealing with the “sacred.”  This ideal of respect allows for a closer analysis of Goffman’s asymmetrical deference. 

Reference:

 

Colwell, B., 2007, ‘Deference or Respect? Status Management Practices Among Prison Inmates’, Social Psychology Quarterly 70: 442-462.