Its been a rotten month, possibly the worst in the four years since starting my PG study. Irrespective of problems with a flat mate, I came down with an infection that laid me low for almost an entire month. Other than a little data analysis and some reading very little has been achieved in this time period and as I approach the end of the third year I am beginning to feel the pressure. What I have been able to do whilst recovering is understand a little better the work of Erving Goffman. The man clearly had a incredible eye for detail yet the breadth of intellect to put his work into discernable context, mostly through the clever use of the metaphor. Though his work is sufficiently varied and intricate to intimidate even the most dedicated pedant, Goffman does provide a wide degree of categorise in his work and a practical framework for analysis.

At this moment in time I have identified upwards of 20 potentially interesting exerts from the 24 hours+ of data that I have transcrobed to date. In general, the data does not appear to demonstrate a great variety in interaction and behaviour. The boys and the younger girls treat the computer like a games machine where the boys in particular wish to demonstrate a level of prowess and control. The older girls treat the computer like an MTV channel where music and videos are the preference and the content is somewhat is somewhat negotiable. The level of interaction during ‘play time’ is generally limited afterall communication is mediated by the computer itself. The truly interesting exerts are those where the children are negotiating how to use the computer; who is in control and the preferred source/ form of entertainment. In general, this process of negotiation is most intense between the boys and the younger members of the group. At these points in particular there is very little noticable team work i.e. no clear team ethic and no objectives. These periods represent little more than individuals fighting for control of the computer and the interaction space on their own terms. As might be expected between young male participants, the boys tend to put on a front (and assert property rights) designed to portray a level of competence and knowledge as a mechanism for asserting control. Few are convinced by this performance however and disputes sometimes led to loss of personal control and even physical confrontation. The younger children would invariably lose this battle of wills often leading to an overspill of frustration (temper loss and crying) not simply as an release for their frustration but also as a lever on the facilitator to enter the domain and negotiate a solution on their behalf. This ‘front’ of the boys is most clearly brought into question whenever they are interacting with the girls (particularly the older girls) who use various tools in order to confront and even compromise the face of their male compatriot. In fact, the boys demonstrate a surprising level of deference to the girls who invariably get their own way either through direct interaction or a more subtle undermining of his position (threatening male face).

Most of the interaction doesn’t appear to represent a performance in the strict sense of Goffman. That is to say, there is no clear delineation in dramaturlogical terms between front stage and back stage areas. This could be related to the maturity of the participants i.e. still in the process of acquiring/learniing the ‘ritual game’, however much of the interaction suggests a deal of uncontrived behaviour (back stage) irrespective of context, including the interactant. As previously suggested however this dynamic does change in relation to age and likely position within the group. Naturally, the older children receive far more deference (change in the demeanour of younger children) and consistently adopt/acquire positions from which to control/manipulate their younger peers. As the most unpopular members of the group, Br (young boy) and Na (young girl) recieve more than their fair share of demeaning attacks to face from other (particularly older) members. Br uses a range of overt (passive-aggressive) techniques alternating from physical and verbal retaliation to comic interludes as a means of coping with these situations. In fact, Br appears to be the primary source of interesting inaction as he attempts to fend off opposition whilst controlling and manipulating the SOLE to his own advantage.

Now that we have turned most definitively to the subject of Goffman, here are some of the principal categories that I have identified from the literature:

Interactional Ritual. The foundation of interaction. Interaction is undertaken in the form of established and accepted social forms and procedures.

Face: personally claimed social value (have, be in, maintain). Self-respect/pride to oneself and consideration to society. Defensive to guard ones own face and Protective to guard anothers face. Self is in part a ceremonial thing, a sacred object (p91) where ceremonial acts are throughly institutionalised.

Threat: 1) faux pas, gaffe 2) malice, spite 3) incidental, unintentional

Basics: 1) Avoid contact as a means of protecting face 2) Corrective: re-establish the ritual state through calling attention to the threat and offering corrective opportunity 3) Aggressive; snubs and digs

Repair; tact, self abasement

Socialisation: A persons performance of facework, extended by his tacit agreement to help others perform theirs, represents willingness to abide by the ground rules of social interaction.

Double Definition of self: 1) image of self pieced together from expressive implications of the full flow of events 2) player in a ritual game who copes (dis) honourable or (un)diplomatically with the judgemental contingencies of the situation

As sacred objects, individuals are subject to slights and profanation (players in a duel who wait for the rounds to pass wide of the mark before embracing their opponents

Spoken Interaction: 1) signs and symbols reflect social worth and mutual evaluation 2) system of practices, conventions and procedures; utterances (timing and duration), regulated interruptions and lulls, modulated references, rules of transition etc.

Social relationships require face to be entrusted in the tact and good will of others. In general (a state of truth), a person determines how he ought to conduct himself in interaction by testing the potentially symbolic meaning of his acts against the self-images (other participants) that are being sustained (subjecting personal behaviour to the expressive order)

Ritual Order

‘Factual’ model of social order equates to the world of a schoolboy and the purchase of credits (p42).

Implied that underneath differences in culture, people everywhere are the same. Universal human nature  is a reflection of society mobilising individuals through ritual; he is taught to be perceptive, to have feelings attached to self and a self expressed through face, to have pride, honour and dignity, to have considerateness, to have tact and a certain amount of poise. Unversal human nature then is a construct built up not from inner psychic propensities but from moral rules imposed on him from without (p45). These rules will: 1) determine the evaluation of self and of others in the encounter 2) the distribution of feelings 3) the kinds of practices employed to maintain the ritual order

Deference & Demeanor

Sacredness of the person displayed and confirmed by symbolic acts

Rules of Conduct (moral order): binding the acor and the recipient together are the binding of society (p90): 1) obligations; moral management of self. 2) expectations; others morally bound to act in regard to him. Symetrical (equivalent expectations) and Asymmetrical (different expectations)

Rules: 1) Substantive; important in their own right (legal, moral, ethical). 2) Ceremonial; guides conduct (conventions and systems of etiquette). The ceremonial component of concrete behavior has at least 2 elements; Deference & Demeanor

Deference (appreciation of/to a recipient) tend to be related to position in social hierarchy: 1) Avoidance rituals (what not to be done): maintenane of deferential distance (ideal sphere) i.e. class. 2) Presentational rituals (what to be done): specific requirements concerning acts between individuals

Demeanor (deportment, dress, bearing): a person of desirable qualities (socialised). Tends to point to qualities which any social position gives its incumbent. Receivers intepretation, Symmetrical and Asymmetrical.

Overlap. The giving or with-holding of deference expresses the fact that he is a well or badly demeaned individual. Subject to culture clash (p82)

Ceremonial Profanations: Abuse, Sarcasm etc

If an individual is to act with proper demeanor and show proper deference then he must have areas of self determination: clean clothes, food, free movement, ability to decline certain kinds of work (p92)

Durkhiem suggests that primitive regions can be translated into concepts of deference and demeanor (secular world not as irreligious as it appears)

Embarassment: mechanics imagery: conversation in balance/equalibrium

Individual projected (construct) into a conversation. Embarrassment resulting from 1) difference between claims and reality 2) factors of rank and power. Fragmentation means that audience segregation may be favourable

Alienation: Involvement obligations 1) follow the rules of etiquette 2) coincident involvement in conversation 3) maintanance of individual involvement and that of the other

Standard forms of alienating distraction 1) External preoccupation: insufficient attention given to theme of conversation 2) self conciousness: the individual pays too much attention to himself 3) interaction consciousness: to concern with the manner of interaction than the topic of conversation 4) Other consciousness: distracted by another participant as an object of attention (insincerity and affectation), includes over-consciousness and involvement (leads to ‘other’ alienation)  5) visual distraction

Framework 1) Context of involvement obligations; symmetrical or asymmetrical 2) Psuedo Conversations: interaction is not based on speech but stylised gestures 3) Unfocused Interaction: Individuals in one another visual and audio range continue with their business unconnected by a shared focus of attention

Social encounters of the conversational type seem to share a fundamental requirement: the spontaneous involvement of the participants in an official focus of attention must be called forth and sustained (p134). The computer then appears to inhibit natural conversation.

Mental Symptoms and Public Order; Psychotic behavior runs counter to is considered public order. To act in a psychotic manner is to associate wrongly with others in their presence. The infraction is not that of communication but against the rules (guidelines) of co-mingling. (p143). Examine the general rule of conduct of which the offensive behavior is an infraction and compare with the social circle that sustains the rules

Units of Association: Language of sociology is structuralist and deals with organisations, structures roles and statuses not interaction. Units are 1) social occasion: an event  2) gathering; two ot more individuals 3) encounter; focused interaction. The rules regulating initiation, maintenance and termination of states of talk are metacommunications

Where the Action is

1) Chances: Gambling, odds and payoff. Bet Phases: squaring-off, determination, disclosure, Settlement. In ordinary live (as opposed to games and contests) the time period is related to a protracted determination phase

2) Consequentiality: Utility represents variations in meaning that different persons give to the same bet.Consequentiality is the capacity of the payoff to flow beyond the bounds of the occasion in which it is delivered and to influence objectively the later life of the bettor (p159) i.e the human (as opposed to the commodity) equivalent of the payoff

3) Fatefulness: an activity that is both problematic and consequential is also fateful. Primordial bases of fatefulness include: a) adventitious: an event that is ordinarily well-managed and un-noteworthy can cast fatefulness backwards in time. b) a degree of physical danger is involved c) co-presence i.e. a social situation

When an individual is in the presence of others, he is pledged to maintain a ceremonial order by means of interpersonal ritual (p189).  In social situations the individual is always in jeoprdy because of adventitious linkings of events, the vulnerability of the body, the need to maintain proprieties. It is when accidents occur (unplanned impersonal happenings with incidental dire results) that sources of fatefulness come alive

Consistent with a post-structural approach to research, a typically unified representation of geo-political context is considered an inappropriate means to interpret context. In this case, the principal reference for the ‘American’ identity is Walter Mignolo’s ‘The Idea of Latin America’. It is the opinion of Mignolo that the contemporary representation of the continent is not a objective reality but a reflection of a singular, colonial intepretation of knowledge and history. For the overwhelming majority, the arrival of the European on distant shores would come to represent not simply the violent exploitation of labour (in the forms of slavery) and exappropriation of land and resources, colonial domination would include Christian notions of civilisation resulting in the suppression and even eradication of local cosmologies and frames of understanding.

Mignolo traces the articulation (as opposed to the expansion) of empire from the ‘discovery’ of the new continent by the Spanish in the 15th century through to a second period of decolonialisation in the aftermath of WWII.  From the moment of its emergence, the new fourth continent (Indias Occidentales) was perceived as an extension (as opposed to an intrinsic part) of the West, a tabla raza to be defined and exploited by the superior, civilising forces of progress and modernity. Consistent with the conceptual references of Said, Mignolo refers to the cultural reality of Occidentalism and the assumed rights of the West to acquire, name and categorise all within their extended dominion. Not only were the multitude of Indigenous communities subjugated or exterminated by the Spanish Conquistadores (most notably, Cortes and Pizzarro) but their cosmologies, histories and traditions were marginalised and/or exterminated in the just cause of civilisation. More than three centuries of colonial expansion and domination followed until Spanish rule was finally brought to a close by ‘the Liberator’ (Simon Bolivar) in early 19th century. Bolivar’s efforts however were not undertaken in the name or presence of the indigenous community but an emergent and prosper Creole population (direct Spanish decendants) weary of the decadent and decaying (Baroque) socio-political culture of the colonist. Though victorious over the Spanish, the utopian visions of a unified continent died with Bolivar and the region entered its first post-colonial period of struggle reflecting the emergence of newly independent, sovereign nations trying to establish coherent identities. According to Mignolo, this process of identity is most clearly understood in relation to the pervailing socio-political horizon. During the period of the first decolonisation the Spanish and Portuguese empires were in terminal decline. The coincident period of European Enlightenment was to witness the emergence and pre-eminence of England, Germany and France. It was the libertarian of Latin cousins, France that was to hold particular sway over the continent. Indeed, the notion of ‘Latinidad’ was adopted as a national symbol and culture primarily as a means of clear differentiation in light of the emerging imperial threat from the Anglo-Saxon America to the north. Latinidad however had double-edged derogatory impact. Though it created a symbol of unity for the dominant Creole population, Latin America was relegated in the prevailing scale of civilsation led by the dominant forces of Anglo-Saxon culture. Moreover, Latindad symbolised a lack of self awareness of the nature of colonialism. Having just emerged from under the heel of the Spanish, the imposition of Latinidad by the Creole elite reimposed colonialism (the internal variety) on the alternative cultures, represented by the mix of Africa and Indian communities.

The modern-colonial paradigm of relations reflects an imperative to comprehend the full impact of colonialism and restore local identity though the histories and views impact of recipient communities since the emergence of imperialism and the dominance of the Western model of development.

In the 3 years since I started my studies my principal concern has been to avoid the imposition of my perception and ideas on the people who I meet and the environment within which I am working. This is in direct contrast to the prevailing positivist approach associated with modernism and explains the range of ‘birth’ pains that I have had to manage in order to get this far. My curiousity was originally peeked by the HASS courses and the introduction to Post-Colonial thinking and specifically, Said and Foucault. Said critique is based centred the creation of the other, the orient defined and understood not on its own terms but within the discourse of Western science and history. Critics of orientalism however suggest somewhat ironically, that Orientalism (like much of the post colonialism) is still defined and constrain by modern methods of social science with its naive and simplistic (binary) forms of expression. Indeed, if the West truly defines what the Orient is, why is the reality so different to this notional representation (Young). In constrast, Mignolo refers to the cultural and intellectual tension defined as border thinking; Occidentalism (modernity and what the west thinks of itself) and the regional ontology (what the region. In theoretical terms tension finds its expresssion in Subaltern studies, an tradition originally concieved by Gramsci and continued in the works of Prakash, Spivak etc. Subaltern studies resides within the fileld of Post Colonial studies in the strictest post modern sense of the word i.e. a new ontology as opposed to the more limited (modernist) critique of modernism and colonailism itself. Mignolo continues by attempting to reveal subaltern experience and expression within Latin America (hence its significance to my thesis).

Understanding the starting point of development and history from a subjective perspective requires the comprehension of the notion of personal identity as opposed to the more essentialist idea of culture.

The notion of identity as defined by Wenger (1998)
Lived: Identity is not merely a category, a personality trait, a role or a label; it is more fundamentally an experience that involves both participation and reification
Negotiated: Identity is a becoming. The work of identity is on-going and pervasive.
Social: Community membership gives the formation of identity a fundamentally social character
A learning process: An identity is a trajectory in time that incorporates both past and future into the meaning of the present
A local-global interplay: An identity is neither narrowly local to activities nor abstractly global

Furthermore, Wenger relates the notion of identity to participation and non-participation, where the latter given a certain historical trajectory can mean marginalisation (ibid, 1998, p167). Identity is a reflexive construct effected by the picture people build up of their position in the world.

Wenger identifies a notion of belonging related to identity and learning as follows (ibid, pp174):

– Engagement; active involvement in mutual processes of negotiation
– Imagination; creating images of the world and seeing connections through time and space
– Alignment; co-ordinating our energy and activities in order to fit with the broader structures and contribute to broader enterprises.

Identities based on identification (belonging, communities) and negotiation (economy of meaning) will bring issues of power to the fore (ibid, pp189). Wengers refers to power in terms of identity and negotiation of meaning rather than political/instutional power. Power has a dual aspect: Primarily as the reflection of the ability to act in line with the enterprises we pursue and only secondarily in the domain of competing interests (domination and subordination)

Wenger relates identity and practice to the ideas of learning and emergent design that appear to be aligned to the notion of self-organised/autonomous environment i.e. there could be a cogent theoretical/philosophical connection between subject-object; reflection-action in the realm of emergent identity and learning.

This structure appears to provide broad aims for Conversation Analysis

Continuing the discussion regarding the nature of truth and a potential shift in the ontological view from post-modern to a critical realist stance (Harre vs Bhaskar; Human Reality vs Social Reality). It seems to me that, in line with the post-modern perspection there are an infinite number of potential interpretations of an event. Philosophically at least, there can be no essential reality that we all know i.e.no eternal truth. However, social norms based on perceptions of acceptable behaviour have emerged as a consequence of social inaction/constructive and its reflexive relationship with society over time (structuration, Giddens) i.e. human interaction based on relationships effects the shape of society in terms of the nature of laws and institutions while the reverse is also true. Which came first i.e. Harre vs Bhasker appears to be largely immaterial. A temporal and negotiated consolidation of understanding in terms of social norms, laws and institutions then reflects an idea of truth. However this truth only exists in Society (Foucault). In a similiar vain, Plato recounts the metaphor of man in a cave, only seeing the shadows of some possible eternal truth.

In terms of my research, it is suggested that cultural and social norms (whatever there moral basis) represent a reality for the children and that reality will be reflected in their discourse. The potential for change in society is a question of changing the discourse, though naturally this can be a difficult task. Rather than focus on development and progress at this time the research is slanted towards and limited to the interpretation of understanding within the SOLE

What is important here the temporal requirement to link my research to the notions of development in some way. This requires some notion of what reality is for the participants and what progress means for them i.e social truths for marginalised Colombian children. This goal may only be achieved as a post doc but this research will provide the framework for achieving a meaningful learning environment for the children involved i.e in the absence of a certain truth, the post-modern paradigm is to limited. Now I require the appropriate interpretation of Foucault to fit my view (see Lopez and Potter, 2001).

Boudieu (Lopez, Potter, 2001; pp47) uses Marxist rhetoretic to suggest that the notion of social structure in subsequent divided by class. Furthermore Critical Realism seems to suggest that the entities of self concious individuals and social structure are of a different order; self conciousness characterises human actions but never the transformation of social structure. The relation of social structure to individuals conditions a reality where unconcious predispositions unconciously produce structure. Which suggests that if these relationships are made conscious that change is the result.
Pearce and Woodiwiss (in Lopez and Potter) also suggest that while the need to implement social change is positive, scientific work does not provide an adequate basis for moral commitment without knowledge of the prevailing political discourses. (ibid, pp53). Furthermore (to make Foucault intelligible ) ontological assumptions include the social world being composed of structural entities and their interactions rather than human beings. While human beings are self evidently social presences, they are only of interest in so far as they can be rendered socialogically intelligible; through their patterned enactment of social identities or the part they play in discursive formations (Foucault, 1977)

It should also be noted that Archer in addition to a social world also argues for an individual world an selfhood not totally subject to social influences (a personal identity). Reality is in essence a convergence of different world’s (personal, social and the natural)

The difficulty I am facing is the difficulty of producing a structured thesis through a postmodern approach. This in certain respects is a contradiction because unlike the rational scientific method, post modernism decries the notions of truth and theory based on a pre-eminent position of the author.

This can be readily shown in the context of the literature review which in a positivist terms will often attempt to define the research context in terms of essentialist ideas of culture and history. The tension arises from the fact that postmodernism doesnt recognise a unified and coherent form of history. In contrast, the likes of Foucault and Said suggest that definitions of history are in fact localised, fragmented, relative and subject to interpretation. Ergo, Historicism is a subtle form of oppression that reformulates and distills events in the form of a narrative that re-presents historical facts to suit the political and ideological aims of the author.

Hence, postmodernism raises concerns regarding the accepted authority of the author and the need to reconceptualise and prioritise the notion of human subject (attack on Sartres humanism and existentialism), the reader and the text. Foucault first identified knowledge in terms of discursive eras suggesting that knowledge is social (and constructivist) and only emerges from within specific settings (Archaeology as a philosophical rather than an historical analysis). The three periods (ages) he identified were: Classical,

What Foucault suggests is that the ontology of the marginalised cant be expressed from within the modern paradigm as (by its very definition) marginalised views are beyond this rational domain. Rather than attempt to present these views directly (you cant get into peoples minds), Foucault reconceptualises knowledge to illustrate the (historical) changes that have occurred in relation to accepted modern truths: penality, sexuality etc and suggests that knowledge and modernity are not in fact the coherent, unified entities they appears to be but contingent on the social and discursive settings that shape the dominant discourse. Knowledge within the social settings is therefore a political phenomena that is subject to the influence of power (reflexive relationship) i.e. there is no truth, no human nature, no definitive subject all are created within the bounds of society and the institutions that emerge, consolidate and support it.

Foucault always focused on the societies outsiders and believed thats an analysis of society and knowledge (an analysis of power) is more effective from the bottom, up. In line with postmodern thought, this approach will provide an often fragmented, partial even contradictory reflection of events however its purpose it to reveal social realities rather than solve specific social issues, capturing the views of the marginalised who are most effected by the use and abuse of power. In this context, Foucault suggests that power inscribes the soul (During, 1992; pp135).

In practical terms what Foucault appears to be suggesting is that individual identity within the SOLE is far more significant that the potential impact of culture (which is an essentialist and historical notion). Instead of looking for the purpose and intelligibility in history, Foucault presents it as a nexus of tensions comprised of discrete categories i.e penality, sexuality, poverty. Examples of the types of questions that arise from Genealogy include (ibid, 138):

1) How do aims, institutions and discursive formations change
2) What problems and struggles do documents about poverty address
3) How do these discourses, struggles, institutions affect lives

In the Order of Things foucault suggests that Western thought started in the Renaissance and since there have been four systems of possible discourse; categorising, ordering and connection of things and determining what passes for knowledge (ibid, pp54)

1st episteme: resemblance of things.
2nd episteme: Classical concerned with relations of identity and difference
3rd episteme: Modern

In terms of cross cultural research, ethnology can assume its proper dimensions only within the historical sovereignty….of European thought and the relation that can bring it face to face with all the other cultures as well as itself.(pp56)