Social Influences and Individualism
The early research carried on by Goffman seems to suggest that (removed from a social framework and social context) individuals do not have a genuine ability for self-expression however, later theorists believe there is a link between a desire for authenticity and individualization. The following will carefully examine these theories by looking at the work done by Erving Goffman and Harold Garfinkel, two of the most prominent researchers in this area (Travers, A 1994, 5). An interesting aspect of Garfinkel’s work is that he controversially suggested that sociology simply didn’t exist. He believed that it should be superseded by ethnomethodology. Goffman somewhat more conservative position was that his goal was to study the social aspects of everyday life that provided a framework for the creation of an individual. Goffman derives some of his underlying notions from full-time, in that he felt that the individual self was constructed by society through the use of rituals that supported the other’s self while upholding their own. These concepts will be more fully developed below.
As mentioned above, Garfinkel made significant contributions to sociology through the promotion of the concept of ethnomethodology, the full benefits of which have yet to be fully realized (Maynard, DW. 1991, 279). Many of his ideas were advanced through the publication in 1967 of Studies in Ethnomethodology. Certainly, this is where they gained a broader public appeal. Some very interesting aspects of this work flow from concepts like the “situated actor,” as well as the belief that we need a more substantial collection of terms and concepts so as to describe the ongoing thought processes of the actor, not to mention the idea that our present ideas about the cultural and rational actors are wholly insufficient (Jerolmack, C 2009, 373). In other words, in order to understand how social outcomes derived from the social interaction of individuals, we must have a better understanding of how these individuals function. Both Goffman and Garfinkel provide significant data and resources in this regard.
When explaining his principal research objectives in Studies in Ethnomethodology, Garfinkel wrote that he sought to “ treat practical activities, practical circumstances, and practical sociological reasoning as topics of empirical study” (Garfinkel, H. 1967, 43). A principal focus of Garfinkel’s was the understanding of ordinary common sense that individuals use in their day to day lives. Below are the kinds of questions that Garfinkel wanted to understand about individuals and their interaction with society.
What preconceptions do individual jurors have about human motivations that help them to arrive at their decisions?
How does unspoken and undefined background knowledge makes otherwise elliptical conversations understandable to the participants?
How are unexpected deaths classified by the Los Angeles police department and what standards and implicit expectations are used for this purpose?
As these questions make clear, Garfinkel’s research took him into virtually every aspect of everyday life. Presuppositions about life were an abiding interest for Garfinkel, which is why he developed an experimental technique called “breaching” which was designed to challenge an individual’s expectations in a conversation or activity (Heritage, J. 1984, 81). For instance, in one experiment the individual was asked to play a game. The researcher would then erase the first mark made by the individual and place it somewhere else. Usually, the individual was extremely annoyed by this action because it violated expectations for the game. According to Garfinkel, the irritation and confusion demonstrated by the individuals of these experiments make clear that they have certain expectations regarding what is and isn’t normal (i.e. acceptable) social behavior and interaction (Maynard, DW. 1991, 279).
Garfinkel’s efforts are focused on providing a research methodology for examining an individual’s overall ability to engage in social interactions, as well as how those interactions affect the individual. There are a number of questions he needed to ask in this work, such as precisely what the individual in question needed to understand about society, relationships and social practices in order to have a normal social life. Furthermore, how can this issue be studied in a scientific and quantifiable way? Garfinkel’s work in ethnomethodology has been designed to record and evaluate the extent to which individuals operate under a series of social rules and how they use their understanding of these rules to operate in a social setting (Carlin, AP 2015, 158).
One problem that some have with this approach is that it places the focus on the mental activity of the subject, rather than on measurable behavioral patterns and actions. While it is definitely true that Garfinkel has asserted that he has no interest in the mental inner life of the individuals is studying, his work does have significant implications for cognitive researchers and theoreticians (Attewell, P 1974, 179). Nevertheless, Garfinkel does not present us with a complete theory of individual consciousness. Instead, his work focuses principally on the specific examination of a single aspect of cognition, which is the social practices and rules that can be derived from individuals based on a careful examination of their various behaviors and interactions.
When examining the work of Goffman, it is important to recognize that his theories regarding the various rituals of interaction were made more radical by others and came to be used for the purpose of making such practices seem illegitimate. Moreover, Goffman is concerned about the rise of classes in society. Also, his microanalysis approach came to be used as a method for determining how dominancy by one class over another actually occurs. All of this is based on the micro interactions that take place between individuals on a person-to-person basis (Goffman, E. 1959, 102).
The determinants of what makes one class stronger or weaker than another are revealed in micro-interactions. In other words, some individuals benefit more from such micro interactions than other individuals. Goffman’s research provides us with a number of indicators as to why this is the case. For instance, Goffman felt that common rituals like presenting business cards, opening the door for a lady, formally introducing yourself and similar interactions provided (in his estimation) a method for stratifying the various groups in society. In other words, those who did not properly conduct such rituals were outsiders in the group or class in question (Creelan, P 1987, 43). It is perhaps ironic that it just the time Goffman was using the above traditional examples, many of the old rules of etiquette were being changed or abandoned as society shifted to a more informal and less structured interaction style.
There are a number of factors that go into the creation of rituals, and these factors can vary significantly in their effectiveness. The factors include the ability of a group to assemble and methods for creating a shared emotional focus for the group. Under the right circumstances, these factors create a mutual feedback for members of the group. From a micro sociological step away, the result is obvious in the creation and propagation of micro-rituals in a group. Goffman allows us to recognize the small rituals taking place constantly all around us when we interact with others (Patterson, ML 2008, 96). Furthermore, in groups that have a strong sense of membership and belonging, such interaction rituals are particularly strong.
This is how feelings of social class membership are created. These feelings usually include a strong sense of mutual solidarity with one’s own group or class, as well as the conviction that the beliefs and practices of one’s own group or class have greater legitimacy and should be protected against alternative approaches to living. For individuals, when interaction rituals are effective they provide self-confidence, energy and motivation. On the other hand, when they are not effective such rituals can have an emotionally negative connotation (Back, L. 2015, 829).
This dominance by social classes also has relevance to the concept of individualism. The same factors that allow one social class to dominate another allows a group or class to impose behaviors and mindsets on individuals. One reason for this is that dominant classes or groups are seen as possessing better and more successful rituals. Conversely, dominated groups or classes are seen as having weaker rituals because of their inability to assemble such rituals. For Goffman, these views nicely matched his research at a British hotel in which servants are mere underlings in the surrounding upper-class rituals (Dillard, C., et al, 2000, 405).
However, Goffman also recognizes that such ritual resources can change, which in turn suggests the possibility of not only changes for the group, but for the individual as well. In such circumstances, dominated groups acquire the ability to organize and mobilize. There are many examples of this in the 1960s, such as the mobilization of African-Americans during the civil rights movement. In a matter of years, this dominated class became energized and committed to achieving their goals. This was accomplished by gathering supporters and organizing huge public events (rituals), which help to bring legitimacy to their cause and stripped it away from those opposing them.
It would be easy to provide a list of historical circumstances involving shifts in major social movements and an analysis of such shifts from a micro sociological perspective. Of course, there are also many examples of such movement by groups being undercut reversed by mobilization of rituals carried out by competing groups. For instance, while the growth of the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s served to counteract many of the negative stereotypes that whites had about African-Americans, the increase in gang drug-related related violence in the inner cities during the same period created more negative connotations. Those researchers who have followed Goffman have used a number of approaches to explain who dominates whom in a given situation and why (Fawkes, J. 2015, 678):
Frontstage/Backstage
In one approach, the concept of frontstage and backstage personalities is used. In this, upper classes or groups would be frontstage, with lower classes or groups being backstage. Thus, upper classes and groups become the focus of attention in any network or large organization. They have the ability to set the agenda as they choose. In this situation, the lower classes have little control and must wait on the decisions of their “betters.” On the other hand, this does not mean that more class groups are mindless puppets of the upper-class and their rituals. In fact, in those situations where Lord classes have some degree of privacy or anonymity, they can have their own ritual interactions in which they can (for instance) complain about and satirize their respective bosses. One consequence of this dichotomy is that the upper classes tend to view themselves as possessing superior ideals and motivations, while the lower classes are extremely skeptical and cynical about such representations.
Boundary Creation
A second approach relates to the idea that the upper classes employee etiquette, manners and other techniques to establish boundaries between themselves and other groups. For more, they create ranks in which one individual is considered more sophisticated and well mannered then another. This makes it difficult for other groups to challenge the domination of a particular class because they get caught up in a game involving micro interaction skills they do not possess. Goffman makes clear that this technique is often used in a way that allows the “sophisticated” person to calmly insult those that are considered less sophisticated. With the result that the latter can only respond via and an emotional outburst. This same approach is frequently used quite effectively in the judicial system by lawyers.
The Gatekeeper Approach
A similar approach to the above relates to the way in which certain candidates are selected for job interviews at exclusive business and financial firms. In these instances, it is frequently the case that the potential employees skills or technical abilities are far less important than whether they fit into the group they want to be a part of. Here the use of effective interaction rituals (such as manners and etiquette) and the ability to easily discuss the topics most commonly discussed by the group, all serve as barriers for admission into the group.
Energy and Enthusiasm
Another approach suggests that upper classes have greater emotional energy because they have already successfully run a conflict of interaction rituals in a way that provides them with a great deal of enthusiasm and confidence. This makes it more likely that they will be successful in later interactions in the group. On the other hand, those who were lower down the rung possess less confidence and enthusiasm. As a result, they are less likely to take the initiative in a situation and failed to impress others in the organization. This would explain why an effective entrepreneur is usually one who enthusiastically and energetically leads others to success. The same concept can be applied to highly successful politicians, since they also have to engage in interaction rituals in a way that encourages others to follow and support them. However, this chain of interactions can turn on the politician if they encounter a crisis, scandal or other circumstance in which they no longer have the charisma and influence to manage the situation.
Certainly, it could be argued that these various mechanisms for the domination of one class over another are not exclusive. In other words, a given situation may involve more than one of the back. Moreover, when more than one of these mechanisms (or all of them) are in play, and it can create the definite impression that the domination of one class in a society cannot possibly be overcome. For instance, the barriers that once prevented minorities from attending certain colleges might have seemed this way (Maddox, B. 2015, 440). Yet despite this, it is possible for individuals who are members of lower classes to move up socially in even a very short period of time.
In conclusion, the various views of sociologists (including Garfinkel and Goffman) suggest that while there are structures and mechanisms in place that make it very difficult for an individual to be an individual outside of societal influence and the dominance of either their own group or some other group, it is not necessarily impossible for an individual to establish user herself outside of the social framework. In an age where individuals all too often feel that they merely a call in a larger societal or corporate machine, this realization is a particularly comforting one.
References
Attewell, P 1974, 'Ethnomethodology Since Garfinkel', Theory & Society, 1, 2, p. 179.
Back, L 2015, 'Why Everyday Life Matters: Class, Community and Making Life Livable', Sociology, 49, 5, pp. 820-836.
Carlin, AP 2015, 'Re-Assembling a Corpus: Garfinkel's Ethnomethodology and Intellectual History', Symbolic Interaction, 38, 1, pp. 156-160.
Creelan, P 1987, 'The Degradation of the Sacred: Approaches of Cooley and Goffman', Symbolic Interaction, 10, 1, pp. 29-56.
Dillard, C., Browning, L.D., Sitkin, S.B. & Sutcliffe, K.M. 2000, "Impression management and the use of procedures at the Ritz-Carlton: Moral standards and dramaturgical discipline", Communication Studies, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 404-414.
Fawkes, J 2015, 'Performance and Persona: Goffman and Jung's approaches to professional identity applied to public relations', Public Relations Review, 41, 5, pp. 675-680,
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire], Polity Press.
Jerolmack, C 2009, 'Humans, Animals, and Play: Theorizing Interaction When Intersubjectivity is Problematic', Sociological Theory, 27, 4, pp. 371-389.
Maddox, B 2015, 'The neglected situation: assessment performance and interaction in context', Assessment In Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22, 4, pp. 427-443.
Maynard, DW 1991, 'Goffman, Garfinkel, and Games', Sociological Theory, 9, 2, pp. 277-279.
Patterson, ML 2008, 'Back to Social Behavior: Mining the Mundane', Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2, pp. 93-101
Travers, A 1994, 'Destigmatizing the stigma of self in Garfinkel's and Goffman's accounts of normal appearances', Philosophy Of The Social Sciences, 24, 1, p. 5.
