Goffman, Erving. Strategic Interaction.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

1969.
Summary:
This essay deals mostly with commnication and e!changes. "t the time of its writing it
may have #een more original in its thoghts. $ am not sre of the stats of this athor in
this school of thoght% however, as $ read it there is little that is original in it having read
other writings with similar ideas.
This cold #e tied into a military conte!t in a nm#er of ways, the most o#vios #eing
from an $ntelligence perspective on the ac&isition, revelation or concealment of information
interrogation and'or spying conte!ts.
(((((
Interaction is a game where each reads their opponent and acts
accordingly.
Military context: Leaders knowing how to get subordinates to do what is
necessary.
Manipulation:
- to get what one wants obtain in!ormation"
- counter pre#ent disclosure"
- deception gi#e the wrong in!ormation deliberately"
$xpression %ames: &n &nalysis o! 'oubts at (lay
There are assmptions we have of others and the hman race as a whole. They are ) a given *
ta+en for granted, often ntil change occrs - social rights movements, technological changes.
that cases s to e!amine these assmptions and ad/st them accordingly.
....during occasions o! marked social change....when new industries and
technologies are de#eloped)the physical and physiological details usually
taken as a gi#en can become a matter o! concern) with conse*uent
clari+cation o! the assumptions and conception o! what we ha#e o! what
indi#iduals are. - pg 0*1.
This essay deals with the individal2s a#ility to ac*uire) re#eal and conceal in!ormation.
- an individal needs information from another
- $xpressed in!ormation * face*to*face interaction where e!pression -as side effect of
the information. is sorce of that information. "ppearance and manner can #e indicators of
class, occpation, competencies, intent... - pg 3.
- ,ommunicated in!ormation pg -"
- .ransmission * spo+en, written - tone, semantics. - pg 4*9.
$n a commnication relationship there are two players. The In!ormant and the
Interrogator/0bser#er.
- The $nterrogator attempts to ac*uire in!ormation throgh the a#ove mentioned ces.
- The $nformant can also nderstand this process and attempt to inhibit or !abricate the
e!pressions to give false information.- pg 15.
There are 6or 7oves:
1nwitting mo#e * $nformant does not +now he is #eing o#served -pg 11.
2ai#e mo#e * $nterrogator'8#server assmes the $nformant does not +now he is #eing
o#served -pg 11*19.
,ontrol Mo#e * $nformant +nows he is #eing o#served and see+s to inflence the
$nterrogator'8#server. - pg 10. This is called Impression Management.
- :amoflage, misrepresentation
- threatening gestres* intimidation techni&es* deterrence
- :overt or o#vios - pg 11.
- 6eigning e!pression to give false impressions or information
- :an #e a team effort too. :oordinating commnications with tre information #etween
the two #t misrepresenting to otside o#servers. -pg 14.
1nco#ering Mo#e * The $nterrogator'8#server, sspecting that the $nformant +nows he is
#eing o#served and is trying to misrepresent or o#fscate, see+s to get to the real !acts. - pg
14*1;.
The $nterrogator'8#server may watch for culture pattern slips, where the s#/ect tries
to pass as a nati#e o! a culture not their own. Pg 05.
:yclical
" s#/ect can sspect that they have #een discovered and see+ to conter the ncovering moves -
conter* ncovering moves* pg 95.
(((((((((((((((((
Military context:
,ontrol Mo#e:
- $mployment o! camou3age concealment and co#er") misrepresentation
changing the shapes o! e*uipment etc...to pre#ent detection"
- Intimidating beha#ior to illicit desired responses !rom recruits.
- (ublic discipline o! others to control and teach
- ,o#ert operations
- (ropaganda) (sy0ps
- Spying
Limits/,onstraints:
- (hysical si4e. .ank or (latoon or supply con#oy...
(((((((((((((
Predicting "ction
- standing in the other5s shoes, to gain perspective and predict the s#/ect2s actions. - pg
19.
- Empathy to nderstand motive and intent. - pg 19.
:onstraints
- There are limits on what the $nterrogator'8#server and the $nformant have when it comes to
their )game,
- <hat might #e limits for one, can #e the advantage for the other.
- Physical: <hat is to #e hidden, what can #e sed as cover, means of
perception'srveillance'o#servation of the $nterrogator'8#servers.- pg 9;.
- Technical +nowledge and competence:
- =#/ect not +nowing or sspecting they are #eing o#served - pg 99.
- $nterrogator'8#servers sorting the )real from the fa+e, in regards to impostors.
- pg 05..The a#ility for the s#/ect to fit into an )alien culture
- >man natre. Emotions, facial e!pressions, physiological and physical responses that the
s#/ect may or may not #e a#le to control. -pg 01.
- $nterrogators may attempt, throgh e!tensive &estioning, to find contradictions in a
s#/ect2s story. I! a sub6ect can be *uestioned at length) and i! he
responds with many statements) he may +nd it intellectually di7cult
to not gi#e himsel! away through inconsistencies and inad#ertent
slips. - pg 00.
- Utili?ing good cop'#ad cop techni&es. $ntimidation or seduction) it its
#arious !orms -pg 04. coercive e!changes, - pg 0;. &id pro &o - pg 09..
- =ocial @orms: <hat may #e seen as deceptive to one , may not #e to another. )8epugnant
actions - spying. may #e /stifia#le in some circmstances. - pg 13. Generally accepted
)norms,. "n innocent person will have nothing to hide etc....