Erving Goffman Social Interaction In this first section, we explore human behaviour from a micro-sociological perspective the view

w from below. The very fact of being in the presence of others influences what we do and how we think of ourselves in profound ways. In other words, the sociological approach described here focuses on the architecture of everyday life : these aspects of life that we take for granted and are often invisible to us because they are so familiar but that sustain society in fundamental ways.

Dramaturgy Interaction Order

Erving Goffman (1922-1982) was one of the most astute sociological observers of the dynamics of everyday life and his contribution to micro-sociology is immense. Goffman (1982) was interested in what he called the interaction order, a more specific part of the social order. In exploring the interactional order, Goffman tried to answer the basic sociological question initially raised by Emile Durkheim: what makes society possible? For Goffman, the answer does not lie at the level of macro-sociological structures but at the interaction level. The interactional order is the largely invisible and unspoken norms and rituals (such as greetings and salutations) that members of society follow while in situation of what Goffman calls co-presence (face-to-face situations between two or more people). For Goffman, these norms constitute the grammar of interaction so that interactions are not driven by social actors individual motives and intentions but by their management of invisible situational norms and the impact of these norms on the self. Because our social identities are shaped by our status and role sets, Goffman (1959) uses the metaphor of the theatre to analyze social life as dramaturgy the fact that members of society are comparable to actors playing roles on stage. Since most of our behaviour takes place in the presence of others, we are indeed constantly performing roles for an

audience. The script we are enacting may have been written by society but a believable and competent performance involves more than just going through the motions. For instance, all teachers are acutely aware of the performing character of their job and they know their performance is assessed by different audiences (such as students, administrators, and parents). Being in the classroom is being on stage. Central to dramaturgy is the distinction between front and back regions. The front region is comparable to the stage where the performance occurs: the classroom for a teacher, the showroom for a car salesman, the dining room of a restaurant for a waiter. The front region is what the audience sees: a carefully choreographed and ordered performance. The back region is the equivalent of the theatrical backstage: all the activity that audience does not see but that is crucial to the competent performance in the front region. It can be the teachers office where she completes all her preparation work in order to be ready for the next class. It can also be the kitchen of a restaurant or the back offices of the car dealership. The back region is where people can relax from the norms of interaction that prevail in the front region. Teaching, waiting on diners, or selling cars involve putting ones self at risk of a faulty performance, especially if the audience is less than cooperative (inattentive students, picky diners or difficult potential car owners). In other words, performing involves some tension that can be released in the back region. This is why, in many settings, it is essential to keep a clear separation between front and back regions. If the audience had access to the back region, the performance might be compromised. These examples also illustrate that individual performance actually depends not just on ones abilities but on other social actors as well, what Goffman calls performance teams. Performance teams are all the actors involved in a given performance: teaching teams may involve teachers as well as teachers aides, and administrative assistants. In a restaurant, the whole kitchen staff constitutes a performance team. Whatever role we are playing in any given situation (even the most familiar and informal, such as a gathering of friends), there is no avoiding the fact that being in society means being on stage. Our self is essentially public. As a result, the quality of our performances is essential to our sense of self. More than that, we put our self on the line every time we engage in interaction. As much as possible, in our presentation of self, we try to shape how people perceive us and what kind of impression we make on the audience. Goffman calls this process impression management. There are many ways in which one tries to convey favourable impressions: through the use of objects (owning a luxury car helps convey the image of financial success), clothes, as well as body language. The way we talk, move, how we look and dress, our mannerisms, etc. all convey symbolic information about us to the audience regarding our social class, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity. Some information we give voluntarily, by disclosing it, but some we give off, whether we like it or not. We cannot control the impressions conveyed by the colour of our skin, our weight or other traits that might not work in our favour. Finally, what traits will be perceived favourably might depend

on the characteristics of the audience and the social expectations attached to whatever social role we happen to be playing and the general culture in which the interaction takes place. This means that interaction is a complex and risky business for ones self and yet, it is so routine that we manage it constantly without major incidents. But incidents do happen sometimes and as a result, the performance is not convincing and the social actor is unsuccessful at producing a positive impression or the barrier between front and back regions gets broken down allowing the audience to see the back region. Such cases produce embarrassment, that is, the awareness that ones self has been damaged. Embarrassment can result from ordinary occurrences: a rumbling stomach, spilling a drink as well as any form of behavior inappropriate for a given situation. Goffman shows that in such situations, the common response is to ignore the faux pas therefore giving the failing performer a chance to save face, thereby helping to maintain the normative order of the interaction rather than letting it become awkward or derail it completely a process Goffman call studied nonobservance. In other words, participants in an interaction support each others self, therefore making interactive participation a moral commitment. Embarrassment is also a tool of social control: playing jokes on other people or inflicting public humiliation can be a sanction for not following the groups norms. It can also be a marker of social power: who embarrasses whom depends on the respective statuses of the individuals involved. It would be inappropriate for low-level employee to deliberately embarrass a superior. Embarrassment is not just something experienced by failing performers. It can also be a consequence for collective actions. This explains why most large companies have public relations departments in charge of preventing public embarrassment or controlling it, and to avoid a public relations nightmare. The energy giant Enron faced such embarrassment when recording of phone calls by Enron traders revealed how the company had deliberately derailed the power supply in California in 2000, causing an energy crisis. When individuals possess traits that damage their identity permanently and prevent their full participation in society, they carry a stigma (Goffman, 1963). Astigma is an attribute that spoils an individuals identity. Goffman distinguishes three types of stigma: (1) defects of the body; (2) defects of character, such as mental illness, (3) extremist political or religious beliefs, or drug addiction; membership in socially devalued groups such as racial and ethnic minorities or gender. Because stigmas always carry negative evaluations, stigmatized individuals develop coping strategies to protect their selves when dealing with normals. Individuals may try to hide their stigma if it can be disguised, and limit its social impact on ones identity. Other stigmas, such as major physical deformities or handicaps, are so visible that they become a subjects master status. One coping strategy may be withdrawal by limiting ones participation in society. Another consists in creating a social movement to fight the negative stereotypes attached to a given stigma. For instance, the International Size Acceptance Society (ISAA) was created

to fight discrimination against obese people and the corresponding prejudice, fattism. The Power of Interaction Dynamics The maintenance of a barrier between front and back region is essential for impression management and the preservation of the self. However, based on his work in a mental hospital, Goffman (1961) shows that societies develop places for stigmatized individuals where such separation does not exist: total institutions. A total institution is a place where inmates lives come under the complete control of the institution, such as prisons, mental institutions, concentration camps. Total institutions are closed to the outside world. According to Goffman, becoming an inmate in a total institution involves a process of mortification of the self. Mortification of the self means that inmates are subjected to degrading and humiliating treatments designed (as they are the result of deliberate policy on the part of the institutions staff) to remove any trace of individual identity. For instance, personal clothing and items are confiscated, inmates are strip searched, their heads are shaved, and they are issued an ID number. The point of such treatment is to mark a clear separation between the inmates former selves and their institutional selves. Inmates are constantly under surveillance and they have no privacy. Minute behavior is observed and assessed, and if necessary, sanctioned. Inmates enjoy no back region. This constant profanation of the self by the staff and the coping strategies of the inmates to maintain a sense of identity are the main interactional dynamics in total institutions. In the summer of 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1991) conducted an experiment, known as the Stanford Prison Experiment that dramatically illustrated the power of dramaturgy and roles in shaping behavior. His team selected 24 applicants to become participants in the experiment (individuals suffering from mental problems were not selected). Twelve would be guards; twelve would be prisoners in a simulated prison located in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford. The experiment would be videotaped and was supposed to last two weeks but had to be stopped after six days. Upon arrival, the prisoners were subjected to degrading treatment, such as strip searches and delousing, being put in a uniform and chained at the ankle. They were called by ID numbers rather than their names, another profanation of the self. The guards, all dressed in uniforms as well, were wearing shades (to promote anonymity) and given a whistle and billy club and instructed to maintain order whatever it took, within some limits. Zimbardo was surprised how quickly prisoners and guards became their roles in the most extreme fashion. Guards imposed arbitrary and degrading punishments whereas prisoners became accustomed to their impersonal status and endured escalating humiliations from the guards. For their part, the prisoners exhibited pathological and withdrawn behaviour. Early attempts at rebellion had been crushed by the guards who managed to destroy any group solidarity that might have existed among the prisoners. Considering Goffmans analysis of total institutions along with Zimbardos

experiment, the behaviour of some American soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay is not surprising at all. The Abu Ghraib prison and Camp X-Ray are total institutions. The prisoners ethnically different from the guards are completely left at the mercy of the guards, who engage in the same dehumanizing treatments that Goffman and Zimbardo had observed. Individual psychology does not explain such behaviours. The power of roles and social situations is enough to shape behaviour in the most extreme fashion. It is fair to assume that any institution that has the characteristics of a total institution will produce these types of behaviours irrespective of the actual individuals who end up there as guards or inmates. This explains why the pictures from Zimbardos experiment, Abu Ghraib and Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay show remarkable similarities: they are all total institutions structured in a similar fashion, using similar processes and producing similar effects.