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