r.-,_Qr.;-_-.-.a... -- ... ,-.. ...... .
. I

--—-‘—-'l'——'—"—-

 

22mm; GOFFMAN: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS.

Thesis for 1th Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Charles ’Wright Tucker, Jr.

1963;

 

l mum; [aluminium Llu 11 W1! W6! ll W33!

 

ERVING GOFFMAN: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

BY

Charles Wright Tucker, Jr.

A THESIS

Submitted to Michigan State University College of
Social Science in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Sociology and Anthropology

1963

./ '

0a; MW

 

Approved by:

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In this section I would like to express my appreciation
to those persons who have given their time and effort in
order that this thesis might be completed. Of course, they
cannot be held reSponsible for any misinterpretations that
may have occurred.

First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the
critical guidance of Research Professor Charles P. Loomis.
Without his model, both personal and analytical, this thesis
would not have been conceived or completed.

Secondly, I would like to express my thanks to my
committee members--Professors J. Allan Beegle and William H.
Form for their constructive criticisms regarding the content
of this thesis.

Thirdly, I would like to acknowledge some of the
graduate students whose recommendations were helpful:

S. Saghir Ahmad, Richard A. Brymer, Eugenio Fonseca, Marvin
Leavy, and Clark McPhail. ‘

Finally, the sense of obligation that I have to my
wife and daughter for their patience and understanding can-
not be expressed in writing. Needless to say, the part they

played was central.

ii

Part

II.

III.

IV.

GLOSSARY

NOTES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .

ERVING GOFFMAN: THE

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN TERMS

The Purpose .
The Importance

The Organization . . . .

Academic Career . . . . .

Technique . .
Theoretical Or

ientation .

Review of Articles . . .

Summary . . .

Knowing . .
Feeling . . .
Achieving . .

Norming, Standardizing, Patterning.

Dividing the Functions .

Ranking . . .
Controlling .
Sanctioning .
Facilitating
Comprehensive
Conditions of
Change . . .

COMPARISONS AND

Comparisons .
Conclusions

SETTING

or MaSter Processes

Social Action

iii

Page

HOMMh h NHH

' H

14
16
22
25
3O
33
37
37
4O
43
52
54

56

56
58

61
66

i fl II I III I | I
[ll ll [I 'l III III

INTRODUCTION

By way of introduction several concerns will be dis-
cussed. First, the purpose Of this thesis will be described.
Secondly, the importance of this thesis to the field of
sociological theory will be discussed. Finally, the organi-
zation of the thesis will be outlined to aid the reader on

his journey.

The Purpose

 

The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the major
books of Erving Goffman. Although all of his work is treated
in one manner or another in this thesis, only his three major

books (i.e., The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life;

 

Asylums; and Encounters) will be analyzed using a model de-

 

signed for this purpose. This analytical device is the
Processual Articulated Structural Model (hereafter denoted

as the PAS Model) devised by Professor Loomis.1 Consequently,
this thesis will follow closely the examples of other writers

who have undertaken a similar task.2

The Importance

 

It should be apparent to anyone who is even mildly ac-
quainted with sociological theory that one of its severe
handicaps is what has been called "terminological confusion."3

We have, as Merton suggests, single terms that symbolize

N

different concepts and single concepts which are symbolized
by the different terms.4 The recognition of this state of
affairs was one of the prerequisites that stimulated the
analytical task and the model employed in this thesis.
Naturally, we would not make the claim that this thesis
will immediately "rectify" the terminological confusion of
sociological theory. This thesis is just one modest attempt
designed to accomplish this task using the work of one man.
We will show the relationship between the meanings of the
elements and the processes in the PAS Model and similar meag-
iggs in the ideas of Erving Goffman. We are not concerned
with the terms that he uses, just the meanings given to those
terms. Where Goffman employs the same terms and concepts
that are contained in the PAS Model, this will be noted;
where he differs will also be noted. By this method, we hope
to demonstrate that the terminological confusion that exists

in sociological theory is more apparent than real.

The Organization

 

To accomplish the task mentioned in the previous
section, this thesis will be divided into four parts. The
subject matter of each part will be as follows:

Part II contains some background information about
Erving Goffman.

Part III contains the comparative analysis of Goffman‘s
work using the PAS Model.

Part IV contains several comparisons which exist

between the concepts of Goffman and the theorists that have

been analyzed in Modern Social Theories. In addition, some

 

general conclusions of this study will be included in this

portion.

ERVING GOFFMAN: THE SETTING

The purpose of this section is to provide the reader
with some background information about Erving Goffman and
his contributions to social science. First, some bio-
graphical data is presented. Next, a brief section on his
technique of data collecting. Following that, there is a
brief section on his theoretical orientation; and finally, a

review of his earlier works.

Academic Career

Goffman, a Canadian by birth (1922), received his A.B.
Degree at the University of Toronto in 1945. He acquired
his M.A. Degree in Sociology at the University of Chicago
in 1949 under the direction of W. Lloyd Warner.5 From 1949
to 1951 he was affiliated with the Department of Social
Anthropology at the University of Edinburgh. During these
years in Scotland he conducted the research which developed
into his Ph.D. dissertation entitled: Communication Conduct
in an Island Community.

Returning to Chicago in 1952 he held the position of
Research Assistant in the Division of Social Sciences. He
was awarded his degree in 1953. The following year he stayed
in Chicago in the capacity of Research Associate. From 1954
to 1957, he was Visiting Scientist for the National Institute
of Mental Health. Since 1958 he has been Professor in the

4

Department of Sociology at the University of California at
Berkeley where he Specializes in the areas of social organi-

zation, social interaction, and deviancy.

Technique
Non-participant observation is used extensively by
Goffman for collecting his data. In his work on total

institutions the limits of his technique and the type of

data athered are explained:
//I§did not allow myself to be committed even nomin—

ally, and had I done so my range of movement and
roles, and hence my data, would have been restricted
even more than they were. Desiring to obtain ethno-
graphic detail regarding selected aSpects of patient
social life, I did not employ the usual kinds of
measurement and controls. I assumed that the role
and the time required to gather statistical evidence
for a few statements would preclude my gathering
data on the tissue and fabric of patient life]?

Although this is the only place where he clearly states his
method of data gathering, it is implied in other works that

this is the only method utilized.

Theoretical Orientation

 

Knowing his interest in the development of the self in
the context of interaction, one has to label Goffman as a
symbolic interactionist.7 The social encounter is the
central unit of social organization for him. In a seminar
on communication, Goffmanstated his interests as follows:
f ‘I’have been interested in social encounters, in
‘ the moments during which people come into and remain
in one another‘s presence. . . . I am interested in
how an individual must act to communicate that he is

, a member in good standing in a situation, in a con-
] versation, or in an occupation . . .

Throughout all of his major books that will be reviewed in
this thesis, Goffman maintains this unit as his central con-

cern.

“I
’r-#
Vac-

Review of Articles

 

It is the purpose of this section to present some of
the more salient aSpects of Goffman's early publications.

In doing this, it is believed that support will be given to
the previous comments concerning him and, in addition, it
will assist the reader in the following sections of this
thesis.

Goffman's first article is concerned with the status
symbol. He is Specifically interested in "the pressures that
play upon behavior as a result of the fact that a symbol of
status is not always a very good test of status (rank)."8
These status symbols, or “sign-vehicles," communicate to
others the rank of the individual possessing them. They, in
turn, "divide the social world into categories of persons,
thereby helping to maintain solidarity within a category
and hostility between different categories."9 In this work
he deals with the various devices for restricting the mis-
representative use of any symbol. 10 These restrictions may
be moral, intrinsic, natural, socialization, cultivational,
or organic.11 The rational for mentioning these restrictive
devices is their bearing upon the circulation of class
symbols. 12 The two major consequences of this circulation

process are: (1) those with whom a symbol originates must

turn from that which is familiar to them and seek out, again

and again, something which is not yet contaminated; and (2)
status symbols provide the cue that is used in order to dis-
cover the status of others and, from this, the way in which
others are to be treated.13 These symbols, then, are impor-
tant in the study of interaction. In summary, he makes a
plea for more empirical studies to trace out the social
career of particular status symbols. These studies, he con-
tends, are "useful in a period (1951) when widespread
cultural communication has increased the circulation of
symbols, the power of curator groups, and the ranges of be-
haviour that are accepted as vehicles for symbols of status."14
Goffman‘s next articlels employs one of the models
that has given a particular identifying style to his works.
This model is the interaction process between the confidence
man and his "mark." Goffman focuses upon "the social pro-
cesses by which transformations in self-concept and social
role are consciously and deliberately facilitated by others."16
This essay deals with the adaptation which an individual must
make to re-establish self-equilibrium after experiencing a
loss. His central concern is the loss of status-role. When
an individual discovers that he is unqualified for a particu—
lar role, there is a period of time in which he has feelings
of dissonance and humiliation. It is Goffman's contention
that consonance must be restored. In this restoration pro-
cess, he only considers those actions by other actors which
guide it.17 Here we find evidence of Goffman's interest in

the individual's self-development. He states that the loss

of a status-role is ”one of the deaths that is possible for
the individual."18 He maintains that more research should
be done on the processes by which these individuals are
"put to death,” for in this manner it may be possible to
reduce the number of "dead that continue to walk among the
living."19

Continuing this same theme, Goffman's next article
deals with the interesting process of "face-work."20 Here
again, Goffman diSplays his concern for the individual and
his self-deveIOpment. A person‘s (face) is a self image
delineated in terms of approved social attribute--albeit, an

image that others may share.21

The purpose and necessity of
"face-work" is to guard against the violation of this image.
Goffman emphasizes its importance when stating, "one's face,
then, is a sacred thing, and expressive order required to

22 He illustrated and

sustain it is therefore a ritual one."
defined the processes, both corrective and protective, that
are necessary to save face and suggested there is a “func-
tional relationship between the structure of the self and
the structure of Spoken interaction."23 As a whole, this
article fits into Goffman's eXplicit interest in self-
creation and development.

Deference and demeanor (see Glossary) are the focus of
his next article; it was also the first published account of
material from his observations in mental hOSpitals. Here

again, we discovered Goffman's interest for the individual

and the social encounter. Based on the assumption (explored

above) that the individual “is allotted a kind of sacredness
that is diSplayed and confirmed by symbolic acts," he guides
the reader on a journey through the world of self-
presentation. The essence of the article is best expressed
in Goffman's own words:
"The Meadian notion that the individual takes toward

himself the attitude others take toward him seems

very much an oversimplication. Rather the individ-

uals must rely on others to paint only certain

parts. Each individual is reSponsible for the de-

meanor-image of himself and deference image of

others, so that for a complete man to be expressed,

individuals must hold hands in a chain of ceremony,

each giving deferentially with proper demeanor to

the one on the right what will be receizsd

deferentially from the one on the left.
Therefore, the individual‘s self is a product of joint cere-
monial labor with demeanor being no more significant than
deference.

Again, we see an extension of his interest in face-work
in his next work on embarrassment.25 The major concern in
this article is the "figure the individual cuts before others
felt to be there at the time he presents himself."26 Em-
barrassment plays an important part, according to Goffman,
when this presentation process and the individual's self
is threatened.27 When the individual recognizes a threaten-
ing event (called incident), embarrassment follows because
"to conduct one's self comfortably in interaction and to be
flustered are directly opposed."28 Then, to banish the
embarrassment the individual must attempt to re-establish

the smooth flow of the situation. But, for Goffman, em-

barrassment also has a social function. Its function is:

I‘ll/"u‘

10

By showing embarrassment when he can be neither of

two people (status-roles), the individual leaves

open the possibility that in the future he may ef-

fectively be either. His role in the current

interaction may be sacrificed, and even the en—

counter itself, but he demonstrated that while he

can not present a suitable and coherent self on

this occasion, he is at least disturbgg by the fact

and may prove worthy at another time. ‘
So, in effect, the individual discovers through embarrassment
which identify he can safely project and, consequently, re—
duces dissonance in future social interaction.

Using "conjoint Spontaneous involvement" as a point of
reference, his latest article deals with the ways involve-
ment can fail to occur and the individual can become alien-
ated from conversational encounters. It is Goffman's con-
tention that Spontaneous conversational interaction "is a
little social system with its own boundary-maintaining
tendencies; it is a little patch of commitment and loyalty

30 He discusses how

with its heroes and its own villians."
the individual becomes involved and then proceeds to outline
the ways in which he becomes alienated. These are: external
preoccupation, self-consciousness, interaction consciousness,
and other consciousness.31 The rules of conduct that are
considered inthe encounter are also mentioned. The reason
for approaching human behavior at this level is "by doing
this we can learn something about the way in which the
individual can become alienated from things that take much

more of his time."32 Therefore, by exploring this lower

level of behavior we can extrapolate, with reservation and

 

caution, to explanation on a higher level.

11

Summary

Even with this cursory review of Goffman's early
articles, his sociological concerns should be apparent to
the reader. In terms of the structural-functional cate—
gories of the PAS Model these are: Feeling, Norming, and
Dividing of Functions. Communication is the Master Process
which receives the greatest emphasis. Although these re- .
main the core of his own cognitive mapping throughout his
work, it will be seen in the following section on comparative
' analysis that all the elements and processes of the PAS

Model are treated by Goffman.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN TERMS OF THE PAS MODEL

This is the central part of this thesis. It will con-
sider the three major books of Erving Goffman in juxaposition
with the PAS Model. But before this discussion, some com—
ments will be given concerning the style of each section and
the procedures employed in analysis.

Even though Goffman has a single theoretical thread
that runs throughout his works, his writings are on different
levels. For example, the book on total institutions is on a
higher level than his book on the self. We are distinguish—
ing levels in this case by the complexity of the system
under discussion. The book on the social encounter is still
at another level which differs from both of the above. For
this reason, we have chosen to separate them in the dis-
cussion under each element and process. The separation is
not difficult to discover. When we are concerned with the
total institution, that term will be used in discussion.

When we are concerned with the social encounter, that term

or simply "encounter” will be used. And finally, in our
discussion about the presentation of self, the terms of
,Vperformance," "dramaturgically Speaking," or simply "selfgmr
will be used.

Much of Goffman's work is written in a metaphorical

style and for this reason many of his terms differ from

12

13

those used by other social scientists. It must be added
that even though this is the case, his meanings for those
terms do not differ a great deal. Given this condition,
this writer thought it would be more meaningful for the
reader if he could have a glossary of these terms to which
.he could refer. This glossary is to be found on pages 61
through 65. It might be helpful if the reader would review
the glossary before reading the following sections.

Finally, a note on the procedure which was employed by
this writer to accomplish the analysis. It must be first
stated that there is no formalized procedure for using the
PAS Model in analysis. In other words, there is no "PAS
Model Kit" on the sociological market. Each individual
analyst decides what is the best procedure for him and uses
it. This writer accomplished the analysis in three stages.
First, all of the works of the subject were read in order to
become familiar with his general style and thought.
Secondly, the works were read again, with the elements and
processes of the PAS Model particularly in mind. On this
second reading all statements which "fit? an element or
process were put on cards. And finally, in the writing, the
quotations and other information for the elements and the
processes were taken from these cards. Naturally, in this
last stage the writer was forced to choose which statements
were representative of the ideas of the author being
analyzed. As a general rule the statements that are found

below were chosen because it was thought by this writer they

14

best represent the total character of Erving Goffman's
published works and, in turn, the message he has given to

the sociological world.

Knowing

Belief (knowledge) as an element.--Be1ief concerning

 

human nature is central to the internal activities of total
institutions. This is eSpecially true for the mental
hospitals and prisons. As Goffman states, "mental hospitals
stand out here because the staff pointedly establish them-
selves as Specialists in the knowledge of human nature, who
diagnose and prescribe on the basis of this intelligence.”33
In prisons "in America there isia current belief that once
a man is brought to the 'breaking point,‘ he will there
after be unable to show any resistance at all."34 These
beliefs affect the interaction between the staff and inmates,
for it is through these the establishment views the
individual. It is here, then, that the identification pro-
cess of the institution is carried out.

' During the performance it is necessary for the actor
to believe in his part. Concommitantly, it is necessary
for the audience to believe in the actor's role. There are
essentially two types of beliefs concerning the actor and
his role: (1) "he is fully taken in by his own act," and
(2) "he is not taken in at all by his own act."35 The
consequence of the first type is the impression of a sincere
actor, while the latter is the impression of a cynical

actor. In most cases it is not simply a matter of either/or,

15

but these types are polemical.36 "Each provides the indi-
vidual with a position which has its own particular securi-
ties and defenses, so there will be a tendency for those who
have traveled close to one of these poles to complete the
voyage."37 To insure an adequate performance the matter of

belief in the role is essential.

Cognitive mapping and validation as a process.--In total
institutions, generally, beliefs are brought about and sus-
tained "by training procedures, education and working condi-
tions.“38 Through interaction with the inmates, the staff
either confirm or disconfirm their beliefs. Under the pre-
sent system, which is called the "ward system . . . the
disciplinary frame of reference lays out a relative full set

of means and ends that patients can legitimately obtain

 

. . ."39 Therefore, the training conception of the staff is
”~usually confirmed (this would be similar to Merton's idea
of "self-fulfilling prophecy"). Although the concepts and
methods of treating inmates are changing somewhat in the
"progressive" institutions, generally Speaking, they are the
same as they have been for many years.40

Dramaturgically Speaking, belief in one's role is the
development of many factors. It is continually being revised
by the acquisition of new knowledge. This, in a real sense,
is the socialization of a self concept. As new knowledge is
acquired the role is altered. To exemplify, we must ab-
stract from the process a single performance and consider

it analytically.

16

In a particular performance, the actor attempts to
force the audience to judge him and the situation in a
particular way. He "may seek this judgement as an ultimate
end in itself, and yet he may not completely believe that
he deserves the valuation of self which he asks for or that
the impression of reality which he fosters is valid."41
But the essential goal is to convince the audience that he
is sincere in his role. After the actor obtains this vali-

dation from the audience the performance can commence.

Feeling

Sentiment as an e1ement.--In total institutions some

 

relationships, usually between inmates, reach the character

42

of bonds. This bondedness functions as a part of the

underlife of the establishment in two ways:

First, the mereemotional support and sense of a tie
provided thereby may not be something established
in the official design of the organization. . . .
Second, and more important here, these substruc-
tures can provide the basis for both economic and
social exchanges, of the kind that result in She
unauthorized transfer of goods and services.4

These relations may be one of three types: (1) "buddy" re-
lations, (2) dating relations, or (3) clique relations.
Whatever type it may be, sentiment is at its base.

In social encounters sentiment is a central concern.
__,Early in his career Goffman dealt with emotions.44 In this
article he states:

It is plain that emotions play a part in these cycles
of reSponse, as when anguish is expressed because of
what one has done to another's face, or anger because

of what has been done to one's own. I want to stress
that these emotions function as moves, and fit so

17

precisely into the logic of the ritual game that it

would seem difficult to understand them without it.45
Not only is sentiment or feeling important for face-to-face
interactibn per se, but Goffman also claims:

One must look rather to the fact that societies every—

where, if they are to be societies, must mobilize

their members as self-regulation participants in

social encounters. One Way of mobilizing the indivi-

dual for this purpose is through ritual; he is taught

to be perceptive, to have feelings attached to self

and a self expressed through face, to have pride,

honor, and dignity, to have tact and a certain

amount of poise.4
Sentiment, then is one of the elements in the "cement” that
holds the ”foundation of societies" intact.

Not only does the actor believe in his role but he has
certain feelings about it. Instead of merely doing his task
and giving vent to his feelings, the actor must be engrossed
in his task and acceptably convey his feelings. To what de-
gree these feelings are conveyed to the audience is
dependent upon the particular function of his role. An
example of this is found in the role of the minister. The
amount and type of sentiment emitted is affected by such
factors as: the type of church, the type of audience, the
issue involved, and the minister's concern with the issue.

Whatever role may be involved, sentiment on a concrete level

plays a part in its performance.

Tension management as a process.—-If one were asked to

epitomize Goffman's work using only one elemental process,

 

tension management would be that process. In every

published work he deals with this process and in several47

18

it is the focal point. It would be impractical to include
all of the examples to be found in his works, so the follow-
ing will be some extractions of the more salient ones cited.

The process of ”cooling the mark out" is essentially
one of reducing the tensions that an individual acquires
when he realizes the proof of incapacity, and hence, experi—
ences humiliation.48 This incapacity usually involves the
loss of a status-role but the main concern here is how the
tension is reduced or managed.

Certain devices can be used by the "operator" in ad-
vance so the situation will not occur. These are: (1) weed
out those applicants for a role, office, or relationship who
might later prove to be unsuitable and require removal; or
(2) put up with or "carry" persons who have failed but who
have not yet been treated as failures.49 In addition, the
individual (the possible ”mark") may employ devices so that
he will not experience these tensions. He may use: (1)
the strategy of hedging, by not fully committing himself to
the situation; (2) the strategy of secrecy, by which he con-
ceals from others and even from himself the facts of his
commitments; (3) the practice of keeping two irons in the
fire; and (4) the more delicate practice of maintaining a
joking or unserious relationship to ones involvements.5O
So, these devices are utilized to reduce tension creating
situations. But if tension is evident, certain procedures

are employed to attempt a reduction of them.

19

”Cooling the mark" is a process of consolation. Some
of the "standard procedures" are the following:

(1) Give the job to someone whose status (rank) re-
lative to the mark will serve to ease the situation
in some way.

(2) Offer the mark a new status-role which provides
at_1east something or somebody for him to become
("second-choice professions were mentioned here).
(3) Allow the mark to explode, to break down, to
cause a scene, to give full vent to his reactions
and feelings.

(4) A related procedure (to above) is called stal-
ling where the feelings of the mark are not

brought to a head because he is given no target at
which to direct them.

(5) The operator and the mark may enter into a
tacit understanding according to which the mark
agrees to act as if he were leaving on his own ac-
cord and the operator agrees to preserve the
illusion hat this was the case. It is a form of
bribery.

The next question is: what happens if the mark refuses to
be cooled out? Several outcomes are cited by Goffman:

(l) Sustained personal disorganization of the

mark.

(2) Mark can turn "sour. ”

(3) He can go into "business for himself" with

an "I'll Show them attitude. “
(4) He may "escape" into the region of phantasy.

52
These ramifications in the process of "cooling the mark out"
deal with tension management. But one must note the word

management; this does not mean elimination of tension.

 

Tension, or by definition, dySphoria, is felt in all
encounters at certain times. Goffman's definition of
tension in this case is restricted: “It is sensed discrep-
ancy between the world that Spontaneously becomes real to
the individual, or the one he is able to accept as the cur-
rent reality, and one in which he is obliged to dwell."53

The level of tension is increased when incidents are

20

introduced into the encounter. These are usually in the
form of "slips, boners or malapropisms, which unintention-
ally introduce information that places a sudden burden on the
suppressive work being done in the encounter."54 There are
also various ways by which the level of tension is reduced.
"Flooding out," or, in other words, "a flow of affect
that he (the actor) no longer makes a show of concealing" is
one of the techniques utilized.55 One particular form of
"flooding out" is embarrassment. This happens when the
individual shows that he has projected an incompatible
definition of himself. It also has a social function of re-
ducing conflict. When tension is reduced it is called

euphoria or ease.56

In addition, certain processes of inte-
gration will bring about an euphoric-like encounter.
Integration is a process of "blending-in tension pro-
ducing materials."57 ”By contributing especially apt words
and deeds, it is possible for a participant to blend these
embarrassing matters (incidents) smoothly into the encounter
is an officially accepted way, even while giving support to
the prevailing order. Such acts are structural correlates
of charm, tact, or presence of mind."58 Consequently, by
the process of integration the encounter is re-established
and interaction proceeds.59
Finally, concerning the total institutions Goffman
notes certain "lines of adaptation” that need to be employed

by some inmates to reduce the pressures that come about

through lack of adjustment. He also notes the reasons why

21

an inmate would not need these mechanisms:

. . . there are circumstances in which the home
world of the inmate was such, in fact, as to im-
munize him against the bleak world on the inside,
and for such persons no particular scheme of
adaptation need be carried very far. Thus, some
lower-class mental hospital patients who have
lived their previous lives in orphanages, reform—
atories and jails, tend to see the hOSpital as
just another total institution to which it is
possible to apply the adaptive techniques learned
and perfected in other total institutions.60

1

Therefore, what is possible in the total institution may also
be possible in other situations. Some persons enter into
the encounters that are quite able to adjust and tension

does not exist for them.

Communication of sentiment as a process.--Deference

patterns communicate the appreciation one actor has for an-

other. As Goffman states:

The appreciation carried by an act of deference im-
plies that the actor possesses a sentiment of re-
gard for the recipient, often involving a general
evaluation of the recipient. Regard is something
the individual constantly has for others, and knows
enough about to feign on occasion; yet in having
regard for someone, the individual is unable t8
Specify in detail what in fact he has in mind. 1

Sometimes this "sentiment of regard" is overstated. That is
to say, the actor gives the recipient the benefit of the
doubt by emitting a better image than he deserves.

To conceal feelings in a social encounter is sometimes
difficult, if not impossible. Recognizing this difficulty

Goffman states:

A person tends to experience an immediate emotional
response to the face which a contact with others al-
lows him; he cathects his face; his "feelings" be-
come attached to it. . . . In general, a person's
attachment to a particular face coupled with the

22

ease with which disconfirming information can be

conveyed by himself and others, provides one reason

why he finds that participation in any contact with

others is a commitment.62
Goffman states that there is a "ritual equilibrium" which the
actor strives to maintain during the encounter. Ritual,
then, is composed of "acts through whose symbolic component
the actor shows how worthy he is of respect or how worthy he
feels others are of it."63 Deference patterns discussed
above are just one of the ways in which the actor conveys
these sentiments and in the process attempts to maintain
equilibrium.

In vis-a-vis interaction, which is the concern here,
the communication of sentiment is accomplished by means of
eIementary symbols (”sigh-vehicles"). They could consist
of a gesture, a voice inflection, or the interjection of a
WQId:‘ Because of this, it is impossible for the interaction
to proceed without a transfer of sentiment. In such a

situation it is extremely difficult for an actor to disguise

the existence of sentiment.

Achieving

 

End, goal, or objective as an element.—-"One of the
eXpressed objectives in a total institution is the rehabili-
tation of the inmate so he can maintain the standards that
are apparent on the outside world."64 But a contradiction
is evident. In many cases the inmates are Hhandled as ends
in themselves . . . and we find that some technically unneces-

sary standards of handling must be maintained with human

23

material.“65i This is at times "resented" by those staff
members which do not view this activity as part of their
"calling." At times they feel "they are being set a contra-
dictory task, having to coerce inmates into obedience while
at the same time giving the impression that human standards
are being maintained and the rational goals of the institu-
tion realized."66 Needless to say, there seems to be an
abundance of institutions that never realize their goals.
Within the dramaturgical model, Goffman discusses this
element on two separate levels: (1) the performance of an
actor, and (2) the performance of a team. Concerning the
individual, it is noted that "when an actor takes on an
established social role usually he finds that a particular
front has already been established for it. Whether his
acquisition of the role was primarily motivated by a desire
to maintain the correSponding front, the actor will find that
he must do both."67 The task concerned here is the goal of
[the interaction or performance. The social role will en-
compaSS this goal. A team for Goffman is Va group of
individuals bound together formally in an action group in
order tofurther like or collective ends by means available
to them."68 Insofar as they cooperate and maintain a con-
sistent impression, which is a device (facility) or means of
achieving their ends, they constitute a team. Several other
means outside of dramaturgical cooperation are: bargaining
power, strategic manipulation of actors, and force. The

exercise of force or bargaining power "gives a set of

24

a source of group formation unconnected with the fact that
on certain occasions the group thus formed is likely to act
as a team."69 So for Goffman the central focus of a team is

the achievement of a goal.

Goal attaining activities and concommitant "latent"

 

activities as a process.--It is extremely difficult to locate

 

within Goffman's work a clear discussion of this process.
The reason to be found in his perSpective. He describes the
activities of an individual from a subjective point of view.
In other words, he explains the perceived feelings and be-
liefs of the actors as they are in the process of acting.
Latent activities are, on the other hand, always dis-

covered taking the objective vieWpoint of the observer. The
observer can see the manifest functions of an activity and
can have them "verified" by interviewing the actors, either
during or after the activity. But the latent activities
cannot be "verified” in the same manner because, by definition,
they are unrecognized by the actors. Goffman, then, never
really gets on the "outside" of the activity but remains
"inside," making his examples of latent goal attaining
activities rather ambiguous.
I Goffman does have a few ideas concerning this process.
He states:

Walled-in organizations have characteristics they

share with few other social entities: part of the

individuals obligation is to be visibly engaged at

an appropriate time in the activity of the organ-

ization, which entails a mobilization of attention

and muscular effort, a bending of oneself to the
activity at hand.

25

These ”instrumental formal organizations survive by being
able to call forth unusual contributions of activity from
its members; stipulated means must be employed, stipulated
ends must be achieved.“71

The activity involved in attaining a goal depends
mainly upon the type of role being performed. For example,
the goals of the doctor are, to some degree, specified by
his role. He is expected to administer to the sick, main-
tain a certain impression in order to accomplish this end,
and concommitantly acquire Specific training for this
activity. For Goffman the role and/or the definition of the
situation eStablishes the proper activityfku'goal attainment

and "latent" activity.

Norming, Standardizing, Patterning
Throughout his writing Goffman puts heavy emphasis on
this category in his discussion of social action. For this

reason, its treatment will be rather long and extensive.

Norm as an element.--Norms are referred to by Goffman
using many terms. They are: rules of conduct, procedural
rules, ceremonial rules, standards, transformation rules,
primary adjustments or definition of the situation. Whatever
the term or phrase used or on what level it is used, its
definition remains constant. "The rules of conduct which
bind the actor and the recipient together are the binding
of society. . . . It is here that ceremonial rules play

their social function, for many of the acts which are guided

26

by these rules last a brief moment, involve no substantive
outlay, and can be performed in every social interaction."72

In face-to-face interaction where conversation usually

-.

is involved, norms are essential. Goffman notes;

In any society, whenever the physical possibility of
Spoken interaction arises, it seems that a system of
practices, conventions, and procedural rules comes
into play which function as a means of guiding and
organizing the flow of messages. . . . A set of sig-
nificant gestures is employed to initiate a state of
communication and as a means for the persons con-
cerned to accredit each other as legitimate
participants.

Without norms, then, communication would be random and, there—
fore, incomprehensible.. Rules of conduct are also essential
to the pattern of interaction.
Goffman describes a rule of conduct as:

A guide for action, recommended not because it is

pleasant, cheap or effective, but because it is a
-- suitable or just . . . Rules of conduct infuse all

areas of activity and are upheld in the name and

honor of almost everything. . . . Attachment to

rules leads to a constancy and patterning of be-

havior, while this is not the only source of

regularity in human affairs, it is certainly an
important one.

There are two types of conduct rules; symmetrical and asym-
metrical. The "symmetrical rules are ones which lead an
individual to have obligations or expectations regarding
others that these others have in regard to him, while asym-
metrical rules are ones that lead others to be treated by an
individual differently than the way he treats and is treated

by them."75 This differentiation will become clearer in the

\——_.II-’.~‘v‘-—

section on ranking.

Ceremonial rules differ somewhat from conduct rules.

27

Rules of conduct have substantive relevance in that they
"guide conduct in regard to matters felt to have significance
in their own right, apart from the infraction or maintenance
of the rule which may express something about the selves of
the person."76 On the other hand, ceremonial rules "guide
conduct in matters felt to have secondary or even no signific-
ance in their own right."77 Their primary importance "is a
conventionalized means of communication by which the individual
expresses his character or conveys his appreciation of others
in the situation."78 This definition of ceremony departs
from the everyday meaning which, in most instances, has a
religious connotation. These ceremonial rules are so impor-
tant for Goffman that much of his writings are Spent on them.
In the performance of an act the society imposes cer-
tain standards and evaluations upon the actor. The per-
formance of an individual in the "front regionU may be seen
as an effort to give the appearance_that his activity
maintainsfland embodies certain standards.79 These standards
seem to fall into two broad categories: (1) "matters of
politeness: talk or gestural interchanges that are Sub-
stitute for talk," and (2) "decorum, which is theway that
the individual comports himself while in visual or aural
range of the audience but not necessarily engaged in talk
with them."80 The decorum, in turn, is .segmented into:
(1) moral, i.e., rules regarding sex propriety, rules regard-
ing respect of sacred places, and so on, and (2) instru-

mental, i.e., duties that an employer might demand of an

28

employee, duties concerning the care of property, main-
tenance of work levels, etc. These rules become revealed to
the actor as his performance unfolds.

In addition to the above, the definition of the situ-
ation exerts an extensive normative character on the inter-
action. Its character differs in that the actors involved
formulate this definition, but the "power" of it is no less

important in the outcome of the performance.

Evaluation as a process.--Goffman explicitly recog-

 

nized this process when he states:
In evaluation of the norms or rules which will con-
trol the encounter the participants decide which
rules are important or relevant and which are not
important or irrelevant. For example, it does not
matter whether the game of-checkers is played with
bottle caps or gold figurines, the players will
start with the same positions, employ the same se-
quence of strategic moves and counter moves, and
generate the same contour of excitement.81
Accordingly, there are certain rules that are recognized by
the actors which are relevant for the interaction, while
others are considered irrelevant.

What has been noted above as transformation rules also
play an important part in evaluation. These rules "screen"
external events in their attempt to enter the social en-
counter.82 Others frequently decide who is allowed or re-
quired to participate in the encounter and, in addition, how
the resources (facilities) are distributed once the
participants have been selected (a bridge game is used for

an example of this). Although it may seem that these rules

are "rigid," it must be remembered that Goffman is concerned

29

here with matters of secondary importance. A matter of
Special importance are those properties of the participants
(e.g., rank) which determines the distribution of resources.

Evaluation is important in the ”adjustment” of the
individual to the organization's norms and means.83 Goffman
makes the point that when the ”adjustment” of the individual
“co-operatively contributes required activity to an organiz-
ation and under required condition . . . he becomes the
'normal,‘ 'programmed,‘ or built-in member."84 When this
circumstance prevails it is called a "primary adjustment."

In effect, the individual has accepted the institution's view
of his self, even when this view of the organization is
implicit.

Another situation arises when the individual, through
evaluation and other processes, does 223 accept the institu-
tion's view of his self. This is called "secondary adjust-
ment."85 Collectively considered "secondary adjustments“ are
called the "underlife of the institution"; it is the various
ways the individual "makes out" or "works" the system.86
When more or less formalized they become similar to the
phenomena that is referred to by Robin Williams (after Robert
Merton's concept of "institutionalized evasion") as
"patterned evasion of norms."87 Goffman notes essentially
two kinds of secondary adjustments:

(1) Disruptive: where the realistic intentions of
the participants are to abandon the organization or
radically alter its structure, in either case lead-

ing to a rupture in the smooth operation of the
organization.

 

3O

(2) Contained: which share with primary adjust-
ments the characteristic of fitting into existing
institutional structures without introducing pres-
sure for radical change, and which can, in fact,
have the obvious function of deflecting efforts
that might otherwise be disruptive.88

 

Of these, Goffman is only concerned with the contained second-
ary adjustments. Ramifications of this phenomenon will be

found below in the categories of status-role and ranking.

Dividing the Functions

Status-role is central to Goffman's analytical frame-
work. Before beginning this section the reader should refer
to the glossary to review the concepts of his "role-theory."
For the discussion of this combined element and process, two
of Goffman's works will receive sole emphasis. These are the

books on social encounters and the presentation of self.

Status-role incorporating both element and process.--
Considering the individual in the "situated activity system"
as his focal point, Goffman attempts to overcome the
limitations of the traditional framework of role, the norma-
tive role, and the actual role.89 This was made to show how
these differ and also illustrate that in the past these have
been not considered separately. With this preface we come
to the main point of his monograph on role distance.

Role distance takes place when an individual "effec-
tively expresses pointed separateness between himself and
his putative role."90 "A shorthand is involved here: the
individual is actually denying not the role but the virtual

self that is implied in the role for all accepting performers."91

31

It concerns essentially ". . . those behaviors that are seen
by someone present as relevant to assessing the actor's at-
tachment to his particular role and relevant to assessing in
such a way as to suggest that the actor possibly has some
measure of disaffection from and resistance against the
role."92 Role distance is usually established in one of two
ways: (1) "the individual tries to isolate himself as much
as possible from the contamination of the situation, or (2)
the individual co-operatively projects a childish self.”g3
But “in either case the individual can Slip the “skin the
situation would clothe him in."94 The utility of this con-
cept is‘stated by Goffman:

The concept of role distance provides a socio-

logical means of dealing with one type of divergence

between obligation and actual performance. First,

we know that often distance is not introduced on an

individual basis but can be predicted on the grounds

of the performer's gross sex-age characteristics.

Role distance is a part of typical role, and this

routinized social feature should not escape us

merely because role distance is not part of the

normative framework of role. Secondly, that which

one is careful to point out, is not, or not merely,

necessarily has a directing and intimate influence

on one's conduct, especially since the means for

expressing this dissatisfaction must be carved out

of the standard materials available in the situ-

ation.95
Still in another context the concept of status-role impor-
tant for Goffman. This is in terms of his dramaturgical
model.

A status, a position, a social place is not a material

thing, to be possessed and then diSplayed. But rather, it

is a pattern of apprOpriate conduct, coherent, embellished,

and well articulated. "It is performed with the ease or

32

clumsiness, awareness or not, guile or good faith, it is
none the less something that must be enacted and portrayed,
something that must be realized."96

Goffman Speaks of role here in terms of the personal
front with its parts: setting, appearance, and manner.” The

front is the expressive equipment that identifies the actor

,_, 4-
.-

”and remains with him wherever he goes (see Glossary for the
composite parts). Therefore,~the_front stipulates the status-
role that the individual is playing in particular Spate of
interaction. ‘

3 Another perSpective cited by Goffman involves the
crucial role of a performance. Given a particular perform-
ance as the point of reference, we have to distinguish three
roles on the basis of function: (1) "those who perform,

(2) those performed to, and (3) outsiders who neither perform
in the Show nor observe it."97 The performers are aware of
the impression they foster and ordinarily possess destructive
information about the show. The audience (those performed
to) knofléhhat they are allowed to perceive, qualified by

what they can glean unofficially by close observation. In
the main, they know the definition of the situation that the
performance fosters but no destructive information about it.
The outsiders know neither the secrets of the performance

nor the appearance of reality fostered by it. Also of great

utility is the description of the roles by the way of regions

\_, .—

available to them: the performers know the front and back

regions, the audience knows the front region, and the

33

outsiders are excluded_from both front and back regions.98

. ~—-n

Goffman uses these methods to illustrate the concept of

status-role.

~.._ __

Ranking

Rank as an element.--In Goffman's first published
article, he concerned himself with the problem of ranking.
He used the same distinction between prestige and esteem
employed by Davis:

A status (position) may be ranked on a scale of
prestige, according to the amount of social value
that is placed upon it relative to other statuses
in the same sector of social life. An individual
is rated on a scale of esteem, depending on how
closely his performance approaches the ideal es-
tablished for that particular status.99
Although this paper was explicitly interested in the circu-
lation of class symbols (as noted above), this definition
has persisted throughout his works. Although there are
many instances where status is not used for position, but
for rank.

Goffman mentioned ranking in several contexts. He
notes that "secondary adjustments to the organization occur
with different frequency and in different forms according to
the location in the hierarchy of the organization.”100 For
instance, "low-placed members tend to have less commitment
and emotional attachment to the organization than higher
placed members. They have jobs, not careers . . . the

smallest amount of secondary adjustment is to be found in

the middle range."101

34

Ranking is also important in the total institution.
Staff members have more rank in the organization than the in-
mates. But the "ward system," which existed in the hOSpitals
studied by Goffman was another factor in the inmates rank.
Some wards have a higher rank (those with greater systemic
linkage to the outside), while others had a low rank (those
with less systemic linkage to the outside).102 Consequently,
the inmate acquires the rank that is given to his ward.
Ranking is also evident in a performance. Concerning

the members within a team, it is usually found that someone
is given the right to direct and/or control the other members.
In general, the members of the team will differ in the ways
and the degrees to which they are allowed to direct the per-
formance. It can be noted that the structural similarities
of apparently diverse routines are nicely reflected in the
like-mindedness that arises in directors everywhere.103

' Ranking can also be seen when two teams interact. In
many cases it is evident the one team has a higher standing
than the other. The low ranking is usually in terms of
prestige. In theSe instances the team with the lowest rank
usually attempts to alter the basis of interaction in a
direction more favorable to them. This alteration may be
in terms of a decrease in social distance, formality, or
other factors which may be the cause of their differential

standing.

Evaluatinn of actors and allocation of status-roles.--

Inmates are evaluated and ranked in most mental hospitals by

35

a "ward system." Each patient is segregated by his degree

of "mental illness."104 ”By and large this means that
patients are graded on the degree to which they violate the
ceremonial rules of social intercourse . . .“105 Even though
this may seem to "stabilize" the internal organization of the
institution, the ward system "insures a great amount of
social mobility . . . eSpecially during the inmate's first
year."106 Goffman mentions the first-year mobility issue:

During that time he is likely to have altered his
service once, his ward three or four times, and his
parole status (rank) several times; and he is

likely to have experienced moves in bad as well as
good directions. Each of these moves involves a
very drastic alteration in the level of living and
in available materials out of which to build a self-
confirming round of activities, an alteration
equilivalent in scope, say, to a move up or down a
class in wider class system.

In accordance with the evaluation then, each inmate is put
in his reSpective ward and remains there until re-

evaluation.

In a social encounter it is common for the participants
to be evaluated by their presentation of self:

In general, then, through demeanor the individual
relates an image of himself, but properly Speaking
this is not an image that is meant for his own
eyes. Of course, this should not prevent us from
seeing that the individual who acts with good de-
meanor may do so because he places an appreciable
value upon himself, and that he who fails to de-
meanor himself properly may be accused of having
"no self reSpect" or of holding himself too
cheaply in his own eyes.

Evaluation is also a regard in deference pattern of social

encounter. Essentially we are concerned with the balance

of the interaction:

36

Between status (rank) equals we may expect to find

interaction guided by symmetrical familiarity. Be-

tween superordinate and subordinate we may expect

to find asymmetrical relations, the superordinate

having the right to exercise certain familiarities

which the subordinate is not allowed to reciprocate.109
Therefore, from this example, the pervasiveness of evaluation
even on this level is evident.

In the team performance the actor is evaluated in
terms of his contribution to the total effort. High evalu-
ation is given to those who contribute the most, quanti-
tatively and qualitatively, to the team effort. An inter-
esting aspect of this is the function of the clique. It
often “functions to protect the individual, not from persons
of other ranks but from persons of his own rank."110 Thus,
while all the members of one's clique may be of the same
rank, it may be crucial that not all persons of one's rank
be allowed into the clique.

In many teams the director or leader is given the
social duty of allocating the parts in the performance and
also the personal front that is to be employed by each. It
is fairly obvious that each individual has differential
ability to perform in a certain part. Usually, in the small
group, the leader is given the job of allocating these vari-
ous parts or routines. The success of the performance and,
in turn, the reputation of the director depends largely upbn

his ability to distribute the prOper parts to the suitable

individual.

37

Controlling

 

Power as an element.--For Goffman, power is defined as

 

it is in the PAS Model. The staff of the total institution
has the explicit function of controlling the inmates. At

times the inmates may reSpect a staff member and follow his
commands out of the mere authority of his position. But

more often than not, eSpecially in mental hOSpitals, there
are other means (not inherent in the status-role) by which
the staff member enforces his control over the inmates.111

The nature of these means and their uses will be further ex-

plored under the category of sanctioning.

Decision-making and initiation into action as processes.

 

-—Staff members in total institutions are the individuals who
make decisions. These decisions usually have the force of
strict mandates which carry negative sanctions if violated.
Goffman discusses these matters under what is termed in this
model as facilities, so further discussion will be found

there.

Sanctioning

 

Sanction as an e1ement.--For order to be maintained in

 

social interaction, sanctions--both positive and negative--
are necessary. Goffman cited these sanctions in various
contexts. Moral restrictions that are embodied in status
(rank) symbols are aided by external sanctions (e.g., group

112

opinion). In conversation, the violation of the rules

could result in negative sanction resulting in the condition

38

of alienation,113 Perhaps the most vivid account of sanctions
is to be found in the mental hOSpital‘s privilege system.

The purpose of the privilege system is to integrate the
individual in the internal system of the institution.
Several of its base elements are:

(1) House rules- a relatively explicit and formal
set offprescriptions and proscriptions that lays
out the main requirements of inmate conduct.

(2) Gratifications- a small number of clearly de-
fined rewards or privileges that are held out in
exchange for obedience to staff in action and
Spirit.

(3) Deprivations- a set of punishments that are
designated as the consequences of breaking the
rules. One set of punishments consists of tempor-
ary or permanent withdrawal of privileges. In
general, the punishments meted out in total in-
stitutions are more severe than anything encounter-
ed by the inmate in his home world.114

 

 

 

Therefore, outside of the individual rewards that the inmate
can muster for himself through secondary adjustments, all of
the sanctions are imbedded in this system.

As stated above, there are two types of norms or
standards in the front region: moral and instrumental.
When we examine the order that is maintained, these standards
"seem to affect in much the same way the individual who must
answer to them, and that both moral and instrumental grounds
or rationalizations are put forth as justifications for most
standards that must be maintained."115 "Providing the
standard is maintained by sanctions and by a sanctioner of
some kind, it will make little difference to the actor
whether the standard is justified chiefly on instrumental
grounds or moral ones, and whether or not he is asked to

incorporate the standard."116 As seen in these statements,

39

sanctions enforce the conformity to norms.

Application of sanctions as a process.——Goffman refers

 

to two major procedures by which sanctions are applied. One
type is "internalized sanctions," which are applied to one‘s
self,117 while another type is “external sanctions," which
are applied by others.118 Internal sanctions refer to guilt,
shame, and remorse. These feelings can be found in almost
every encounter. Specific reference was made to them in
connection with status symbols.

External sanctions are the most obvious to the observer
and, hence, are at times considered to be the only ones pre-
sent. 'In total institutions the staff can apply negative
sanctions to an inmate for such matters of conduct, dress,
deportment, and manners--the patient is constantly aware of
judgmental aSpects.119 Goffman states the extent to which
these judgments extend in the following:

. . . it follows that in total institutions one
crucial difference from civil life is that defer-
ence is placed on a formal footing, with Specific
demands being made and specific negative sanc-
tions accorded for infractions; not only will acts
be required, but also the outward Show of inward
feelings. Expressed attitudes such as insolence
will be explicitly penalized.120
We can see from this, then, that the application of sanc-
tions is an "enveloping process" when considered in this
context. Next we will add a note about the dramaturgical
performance.

Refusing to take part in the performance of a team

brings about the application of negative sanction. A good

40

performance would conversely call for positive sanction. In
most cases these sanctions are applied by the director.

Such acts as rate-busting or giving extra concession to the

audience on the part of member of a team is a threat to the

stature that others have taken. These actions would, there—

fore, call forth the application of negative sanctions.121

Facilitating

 

Facility as an element.-4Means required or utilized to

 

achieve goals are facilities. In the PAS model these are
restricted to material entities. Goffman expands the cate-
gory and defines facilities as social and non-social materials
that are available in the situation or encounter.122 He also
uses the terms "realized resources"123 and "sign—vehicles"124
for what we note as facilities. Consequently, social ob-
jects for Goffman are means to an end in many situations.

When considering the underlife of an establishment,
Goffman refers explicitly to facilities. These are physical
arrangements used by an inmate to store or conceal posses-
sions which are not allowed to him by the staff.125 These
are called "stashes." Some are mobile, while others are
fixed. These facilities achieve the goals necessary for
individual adjustment, although secondary, to institutional
life.

In the case of a performance an action or object that
the actor can use to achieve the task of presenting his self
is a facility. The actor's setting is a facility. Props

and scenery within the setting are also facilities. As

41

mentioned previously, the appearance and manner in the front
region are on the same order. Actors use an enumerable

variety of facilities in the execution of a performance.

Utilization of facilities as a process.--Goffman deals

 

with this process on several levels. Individuals in ex-
pression of self need facilities. Within the social en-
counter certain facilities are necessary. On the institu-
tional level, facilities are used to convey certain impress-
ions to the people of the outside world. Although examples
of this process are abundant in Goffman's writings, only a
few will be nECessary for our purposes.

Concerning the self, lack of facilities definitely in-
hibits expression. Individuals "must have an expandable
supply of the small indulgences which his society employs
in its idiom of regard--such as cigarettes to give, chairs
to proffer, food to provide, and so forth."126 Without
these, proper deference and demeanor by the actor are im-
possible.127

For the total institution the visiting rooms are an
excellent example of a facility which is important in
systemic linkage. Both decor and conduct in them are
typically closer to the outside standards than are those
that prevail in the inmates' actual living quarters.128
The development of institutional diSplay illustrates some-

thing in general about the use of facilities in the symbol-

ization process:

42

First, the diSplayed part of the institution is
likely to be the new, up-to-date part of the insti-
tution, which will change as new practices or
equipment are added. . . . Second, diSplay certainly
need not be connected with frankly ceremonial as-
pects of the institution such as flower beds and
starched curtains, but often stresses utilitarian
objects such as the latest kitchen equipment. . . .
Finally, each item on diSplay will necessarily have
substantive implications . . .1 9

The interesting factor in this procedure is the impression
maintained by a visitor as he views these facilities. All
the parties involved in this viewing process (patient, staff
member, and visitor) usually realize that the diSplay repre-
sents a dressed-up view of the institution, but even with
this knowledge, all tacitly agree to continue the fiction.130
In social encounters or focused gatherings all the

facilities for the events are at hand.131 Here again facili-
ties pertain to social as well as non-social objects. These
are referred to by Goffman as "realized resources." Their
relevance is apparent from this statement:

I prOpose to try to analyze focused gatherings on

the assumption that each can be viewed as having

carved everything needed from stuffs at hand; the

:figments of each encounter wiilzbe treated as if

y constituted a full deck.

Given the presence of realized resources, it is apparent
that in each encounter there will arise the problem of alloc-
ation. In more cases than not the norms of the situation
(called transformation rules) determine the utilization of

facilitieS.

For the actor, dramaturgically Speaking, all the parts

_ _, ‘ W”-..
_‘--.. -_ ,_

,. ~—-~.....-._ _.
(w

of the front region (setting, appearance, and manner) are
'-.~¢—m-~—Murw_“fim_ ”‘0‘ -_"_—_ -7 _ q ,... , -- . . . * ' ' ' " . r ,. .

given high evaluation during the performance. Obviously,

-.-_
._ fl”;

wM‘” '

43

they are not all equal in any one performance, but each
factor varies with Specific acts. For example, under certain
circumstances a doctor's appearance and manner are given high
value, while on others (e.g., during an Operation) the set-
ting and the props would have a high value. It can be seen
from this illustration that the modes for the utilization of
facilities depend most certainly upon definition of the situ-

ation and the status-role within the situation.

Comprehensive or Master Processes

 

Communication.--To have and maintain interaction there

 

must be communication of information, verbally and/or
gesturally. This information may be in the form of facts,
\feelings, or ideas. Goffman includes all of these in his
.works. -

In the presentation of one‘s face the actor must be
able to verify the information that he conveys to the
recipients.133 More Specifically:

An act that is subject to a rule of conduct is,

then, a communication, for it represents a way in

wh1ch selves are confirmed . . . 34
In addition, an individual can be alienated from the en-
counter for failing to recognize the rules of conversation.
”Poise plays an important role in communication, for it
guarantees that those present will not fail to play their
parts in the interaction, but will continue as long as they
are one anothers presence to receive and transmit disciplined

communication."135 Hinted communication (e.g., innuendo,

ambiguities) also play an important part in communication

44

of face because "it provides a means by which the person can
be warned that his current line or the current situation is
leading to loss of face, without this warning, it may become
an incident."136

Communication in total institutions plays a central
part in their organization. -Information which is available to
the staff is a necessary requirement of mental hospitals.
Without it treatment would not be possible. But this inform-
ation can also be used in a damaging manner. Case histories
reveal certain facts which would be considered "scandalous,
defamatory and discrediting" by those in the outside world.
There have been cases where this information, used on an in-
formal level, has been utilized to control and degrade the
inmate.137 This is considered by Goffman a misuse of the
communication process.

For the inmates an undercover system of communication
is used for the circulation of messages.138 There are several
techniques that are effectively used. One type is face-to-
face communication without any verbal utterances. For ex-
ample, "in prisons, inmates have developed a technique of
talking-without either moving their lips or looking at the
person they are talking with."139 There is also another
system of silent language where individuals solely, through
eye-to-eye gestures, signify acceptance or rejection of ob-
jects without again uttering a word.140 These few examples

seem to point out the necessities of communication and some

of the seemingly insurmountable obstacles the individual

45

will overcome to take part in this process.

One over-all objective of any team is to sustain the
definition of the Situation that its performance fosters.
"This will involve the over-communication of some facts and
the under-communication of other facts."141 The basic
problem then is communication control; the audience must not
acquire destructive information about the situation that is
being defined for them.

The means by which these facts are transferred in a
performance are: verbal and gestural. In vis-a-vis inter—
action these elementary means are adequate. Even though these
are fairly simple ways of communicating, the lack of under-
standing is always present. Failure to communicate the

correct fact may result in an unsuccessful performance.

Boundary maintenance.--The salience of this process for

 

Goffman is evident by the constant references made to it, re-
gardless of the level of analysis. The Self has and maintains
a boundary or "ideal Sphere" which is private to the actor
possessing it.142 Each social encounter has a "membrane"
which "surrounds" it so information is "screened" out.143
Finally, total institutions by definition, have Ebarriers"
which encompass them.144 The remainder of the discussion on
this process will consider these aspects in fuller detail.

Deference and demeanor are essential to the boundary
of self. Explicitly stated by Goffman:

Patterns of deference, both avoidance and present-

ational, illustrate the boundary maintaining
characteristics of the human self or personality.

46

As Durkhiem suggested, "The human personality is a

sacred thing; one dares not violate it nor infringe

its bounds, while at the same time the greatest

good is in communion with others."1
To further illustrate this idea, Goffman uses Simmel's con-
cept of "ideal Sphere," which for him meant man's honor and
dignity.146 Finally, not only is there a boundary around
the self but it cannot be entered without permission.

Boundary maintenance in an encounter can be best

thought of as an "interaction membrane." The membrane,
therefore, is not a solid barrier by which the participants
cut themselves off from external matter. It is instead a
"sieve,‘ which allows a few externally based matters to
slip through into the encounter."147 Transformation rules
(norms) tell us what modifications in shape will occur in
the encounter. The centrality of this process for Goffman
is noted in the following:

If we think of an encounter as having a metaphori-

cal membrane around it, we can bring our concerns

into focus. We can see that the dynamics of an

encounter will be tied to the functioning of the

boundary-maintaining mechanisms that cut the en-

counter off selectively from wider worlds. AS we

can begin to ask about the kinds of components in

the encounters external milieu that will expand

or contract the range of events with which the en-

counter deals, and the kinds of components that

will make the encounter resilient or destroy it.148

AS previously mentioned, a total institution is by

definition a boundary maintaining establishment. It is cut
off from the outside world. In addition to this, there
exist maintaining processes which facilitate separation

among subsystems. Accordingly, "there is strict boundary

maintenance between the staff and the inmates concerning

47

information, activities and other normal daily chores."149

Also, the inmates via secondary adjustments place a barrier
between themselves and the institution.150 Other devices,
such as staggered work hours, segregated cafeterias, and the
like, are mentioned by Goffman as means of maintaining
boundaries between groups.151 As a whole, then, Goffman's
works are pervasive with explicit examples of this process.

Within a team an amount of solidarity is necessary to
accomplish its goal or objective. To insure this character-
istic, boundaries of information are compulsory. The audience
Should be prohibited from obtaining any destructive inform-
ation about the performing team. Acquisition of this inform-
ation could possibly destroy the performance.

A "region" may be defined as "any place that is bounded
to some degree by barriers to perception."152 The very con-
ceptualization of a front region implies the existence of a
back region. This latter region contains certain information
which would contradict the actor‘s "given off" impression,
if it was discovered by the audience. By techniques of
"impression management" the actor guards this back region
from the audience. As soon as the audience intrudes into

the back region the actor's role is in jeOpardy.

Systemic linkage.--The case of total institutions

 

illustrates most clearly Goffman's thoughts on systemic link-
age. It would seem from the previous discussion that this
process would have no significance in Goffman's scheme.

But the opposite of this is true.

48

Total institutions can be classified on the degree of
permeability of systemic linkage that exists. That is to
say, the "degree to which social standards maintained within
the institution and the social standards maintained in the
environing society“ influence each other.153 Although "some
impermeability in an establishment seems necessary," there
"are some limits to the value of impermeability for these
institutions."154 Permeability of these institutions can
have a variable consequence for its internal workings and
cohesion. This is illustrated by the following:

If the institution is appreciably permeable to the

wider community, then these (lower) staff members

may have the same, or even lower, social origins

as the inmates. Sharing the culture of the in-

mates home world, they can serve as a natural com—

munication channel between high staff and inmates.

But, on the same ground, they will have difficulty

maintaining social distance from their charges.15
Therefore, even though impermeability is stressed in these
types of establishments, systemic linkage plays an important
part in its internal organization.

In total institutions, the matter of ranking is rele-
vant in systemic linkage. It is suggested by Goffman that
ranking is part of working with people. It is also important
in the privileges that an inmate has concerning the outside
world. He states:

. . . when inmates have rights to visit off the
grounds, . . . the mischief they may do in civil
society becomes something for which the institu-
tion has some reSponsibility. Given this responsi-
bility, it is understandable that many total in-

stitutions tend to view off-grounds leave un-
favorably.156

49

Therefore, only those in the front wards, who have the highest

rank, are allowed to have these privileges.

Institutionalization.——It would seem that Goffman, with

 

his emphasis on total institutions would have many examples
of this process. But instead he puts a heavy emphasis on'
what has been discussed above in norming and sanctioning.
The several examples which explicitly refer to this process
will be given at this time.‘

In the social encounter the rules and procedures must,
to some extent, be institutionalized for a constant flow of
interaction to exist. Reference is made to this in the
following:

\

In the matter of conduct deference and demeanor
practices must be institutionalized so that the
individual will be able to project a viable
sacred self . . .157
In the context of the performance Goffman also notes this
process.

Here he deals with this process in terms of the insti-
tutionalized role. He states, "In addition to the fact that
different routines may employ the same front, it is to be
noted that a given social front tends to become institution-
alized in terms of the abstract stereotyped expectations to
which it gives rise."158 Along with this the front tends to
acquire a meaning and stability apart from the Specific tasks
which happen at the time to be performed, i.e., it becomes a

"collective representation" and a fact in its own right.

Therefore, over a period of time certain roles tend to become

50

routinized and this puts certain pressures upon the occupants

to conform to the routine.

 

Socialization.-—As is true for the other master processes,
social interaction cannot be maintained without .Socialization.
An actor must be able to abide by the "ground rules" of
interaction. This is the "hallmark of his socialization as
an interactant."159

In total institutions the process of socialization is
quite interesting and in some instances applicable to wider
society. Goffman refers to the total process as the "career"
of the patient.160 It is carried out in three stages: the
pre-patient stage, the in-patient stage, and the ex-patient
stage. The first two stages are relevant for our discussion.
- In the first phase, which is called the "mortification
process," the patient is "stripped" of all evidence by which
he is identified and was identified in his "home world."161
1h a true sense he is "desocialized."

Resocialization is an integral part of the in-patient
phase. ”Here one begins to learn about the limited extent
to which a conception of self can be sustained when the usual
supports for it are suddenly removed."162 The ward system
and its ensuing ramifications are introduced at this point.
Another important part of this phase is the learning of the
privilege system (sanctioning), which when learned is
indicative of a "adjusted inmate.“ If the individual finds
it difficult to adjust in a primary sense; secondary adjust-

ments usually result.

51

Through the process of socialization individuals come
to acquire the traits of a certain role. These traits can
be the product of institutionalization or the definition of
the situation. In addition, each performance is socialized,
molded, and modified to fit into the understanding and ex-
pectations of the society. So, not only is the actor
"socialized" to the role, but the role itself is "socialized"
to society.163

Socialization may not so much involve a learning of
the many Specific details of a single concrete part--often
there is not enough time or energy for this. But what does
seem to be required of the individual is that he learn enough
pieces of expression to be able to "fill in“ and manage, more
or less, any part that he is likely to be given.164 The
legitimate performances of everyday life are not "acted" or
"put on" in the sense that the performer knows in advance
just what he is going to do, and does this solely because of
"the effect it is likely to have."165 An individual must be
socialized widely enough to perform any role that is re-
quested of him and should attempt to avoid those for which

he feels himself to be ill suited.

Social control.--Control of deviancy within certain

 

bounds is necessary for social interaction. Naturally, in
total institutions this process is pervasive. Minute seg—
ments of a person's line of activity are subjected to regu-
lation and judgments.166 Within the organization there

develops various devices by which control is maintained.

52

One of the most simple devices is name—calling, which is
used by the staff to control the inmates. Social distance
also serves as a means of control. There are many illus-
trations of this process to be found in Goffman‘s writings,
but one example should be enough to illustrate this process.
Control is vital in a performance to insure the proper
"given off" impression. The actor must have control over
his personal front and eSpecially his back region. The team
or individual that has control over the setting definitely
has the advantage over the team or individual that does not.
This control allows the team to introduce strategic devices
for determining the information that the audience is able to
acquire.167 The inability of an actor or a team to control
these factors will result in a faulty performance and, in

turn, failure in achieving the goal.

Conditions of Social Action

 

Territorality.--Goffman, at the onset, limits the

 

Space of the interaction concerned in his works. His per—
Spective is to study social life that is organized within

the physical confines of a building or plant. In addition,

a performance itself is limited by the setting. As mentioned
previously, the setting tends to stay put, geographically
Speaking, so that those who would use it as a part of their
act cannot begin until they have brought themselves into

the apprOpriate place and must terminate the act upon leav-
ing it.168 Hence, this condition has definite importance

in Goffman's discussions.

53

Concerning the secondary adjustments of the inmates,
Space is an important factor. Activities of underlife must
expire in some place. There are several different types of
Spaces. There are those which are off-limits for the in—
mates,169 those which are called "surveillance Spaces," where
the inmate is subjected to the regular restrictions,170 and
certain regions which are ruled less by the staff authorities
which are called "free places," "group territories," or
personal territory.171 It is obvious from just the-names of
these places, what the characteristics of each type happens

to be.

§i§§.—-In his major concern for social encounters, Goff-
man limits the number of actors involved under observation
in the interaction. In a discussion concerning size of
groups, he notes:

Small groups, . . . are distinguished by what their
size makes possible, such as extensive personal
knowledge of one another by the members, wide con-
census,lagd reliance on information role different-
1at1on.

He further notes:

It is possible, of course, to call a social rela-
tionship between two individuals a two-person group,
but I think this is unwise. A group that is just
beginning or dying may have only two members, but I
feel that the conceptual framework with which this
ill-manned group is to be studied ought to differ
from the framework used in studying the many sided-
ness of the social relationships between two
individuals.17

Size, therefore, gives some special characteristics to the
study of social relationships. The members of the encounter

maintain a continuous engrossment in the official focus of

54

activity.174 Groups, on the other hand, continue to exist
apart from the occasion when members are physically present.
Therefore, groups and encounters differ not only in size but
also in some other important characteristics of the total

interaction process.175

limg.--In the encounter time is important for the
acquisition of information. In other words, the more time
expended in the encounter, the greater the amount "realized
resources” will have to be for it to continue. Euphoria is
maintained only when there are enough resources to fill the
Span of interaction.

Time is also a consideration in total institutions.
Activities which are planned by the staff for the inmates de-
pend upon time. "Presumably, the shorter the period of
continuous time that a given category of participant Spends
on the premises, the more possible it will be for management
to maintain a program of activity and motivation that the
participant accepts.“l76 This task is rather difficult to
accomplish, for many inmates consider that time is wasted
regardless of how it is Spent. Therefore, time is, for

Goffman as for other theorists, a condition of social action.

Change

Goffman, being a symbolic interactionist and limiting
his discussions to units of social life which are less com-
plex (see territorality above), has no explicit theory con-

cerning change in social forms. His concern is basically

55

with small interaction sequences which take place in face—to-
face activity within a particular context. So in our dis-
‘cussion we are necessarily limited to these units.

I The change or alteration of the self is brought about
by the acquisition of information in a symbolic form. This
information must be perceived by the individual as relevant.
If the new information produces dissonance, the individual
will have to change his self concept in order to maintain
equilibrium. This process (theoretically) is continually
going on as the individual proceeds from one interaction
sequence to another.

The social encounter is also altered as its members ob-
tain new information concerning each other. Encounters are
boundary maintaining systems. Given this situation, change
could comeabout as the "interaction membrane” becomes less
stable. When the mechanisms which maintain these boundaries
fail, systemic linkage with other systems could result. In
this process new information is acquired and the encounter
undergoes change.

The social behavior that takes place within the con—
fines of a total institution could also change. Goffman
seems to’be quite dubious about "progressive" changes taking
place in these institutions. These alterations could only
be possible if the beliefs and feelings of the members were
altered. If it were possible to institute a plan by which
the attitudes of the staff and inmates with reSpect to the
other could be changed, then behavioral change could take
place. This is the only possible way change could be brought

about within the limits of Goffman‘s theoretical framework.

COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS

In the final portion of this thesis two concerns will
be discussed. First, we will consider several relationships
which appear to exist between Erving Goffman and the theor-

ists discussed in Modern Social Theories. Finally, several

 

conclusions on the nature of Goffman’s works and the nature

of the PAS Model will be preSented.

Comparisons

 

The relationships to be discussed in the following
section will be general rather than Specific in nature. This
will not be a detailed comparative analysis using every ele-
ment and process in the PAS Model. Rather, we will take
several theorists and discuss the similarities which exist

between them and Goffman.

Howard Becker.--Although Becker is a Utypological

 

analyst" and his theoretical framework differs from Goffman,
there are several similarities to be found. In Becker's
treatment of status-role, one discovers the same influence,
namely, G. H. Mead, that is central to Goffman. These same
influences from symbolic interactionism are found in Becker's
discussion of the socialization process. And finally, we
find a similarity between these theorists concerning the
process of communication, which would be expected, given

56

57
the abovementioned influence of Meadian thought.

Kingslenyavis.—-In the category of ranking, both

 

Davis and Goffman employ the distinction between prestige and
esteem. Goffman's treatment of status-role contains several
of the distinctions which are used by Davis regarding the
factual and normative aSpects of role.' Finally, their dis-
cussions of the socialization process are similar in that

they both emphasize the ideas of G. H. Mead.

Robert Merton.--We have noted in the above analysis,

 

under the category of Norming, the agreement which exists
between Goffman and this theorist. The other elements or
processes which they have treated analogously are: status-

role, socialization, and social control.

Talcott Parsons.--The strongest similarity which

 

exists between Goffman and this theorist is in the element of
status-role. Parsons discusses institutionalization, ex—
pectations, and conflict and, although on a more abstract

level, it is similar to Goffman's discussion.

Robin WilliamS.--Norms, status-role, rank, communic-

 

ation, and social control are the elements and processes in
which we find a similarity between Williams and Goffman.
Although much of Williams' work is done at a higher degree
of complexity, many of his discussions do point out these
likenesses.

The similarities that were mentioned above are incomplete

58

and inadequate. They were presented mainly for heuriStic
purposes. From the above the reader should get some idea of
what can be done with this model even though this is a poor
example. A more detailed analysis will have to be accomplished

at a later date.

Conclusions

 

In this conclusion we will discuss some of the diffi-
culties that were experienced in the analysis of the works
of Erving Goffman. Several of them are to be found in the
nature of Goffman's writing. Others are general in nature
and could be encountered by anyone using the PAS Model. It
is hoped that these remarks will assist those who will

attempt a similar analysis in the future.

Goffman.--One of the minor difficulties in the works of
Goffman is one of style. The major books that were analyzed
in this thesis were explicitly written for popular consump-
tion. For one accustomed to reading scientific literature,
this was a challenging and one might add, refreshing task.

Coupled with the above difficulty is a more serious

problem. Out of the fact that these books were written for

\. .—
m’ik HIM-flaw
“04.4.“.be

the lay public, none of them contained an index. This is
eSpecially serious when one attempts a conceptual analysis

similar to the one accomplished here. In many instances

—"—“"'

.. .3

passages had to be re-read several times in order to discern

the exact meaning of the author. A writer always wonders

t.
M‘MHF'

whether a correct analysis has been made. An index would
/‘"-""" ""“'

have eliminated much of this difficulty.

_ __--

59

Due to the theoretical framework of Goffman, this
writer encountered a conceptual problem. Being a symbolic
interactionist, his emphasis is focused on the processes of
human behavior rather than the elements. His central con-
cern, as mentioned above, is continuing interaction. There-
fore, in several instances the elements of his framework
were difficult to define.

Concerning the problem of definition, Goffman presents
a Special problem. He is rather fond of using different
terms that have the same meaning. One of the outstanding
cases of this was mentioned above in the category of Norming.
Goffman also uses some concepts which are unique to him.

This is the main reason a glossary is included in this thesis.

PAS Model.--The advantages of using the PAS Model in

 

analysis have been discussed in the introduction of this
thesis. For the sake of parsimony, they will not be mentioned
here. We will instead discuss a few problems encountered by
this writer during the analysiS‘which are independent of

those mentioned in the above section. As meanings are never
in words but in the user of the words, the same can be true
for any analytical device. The analyst may never know
whether this analysis is true.

To increase the comparative “power? of the PAS Model
some standardizing measures should be instituted. This
should be accomplished without eliminating all of the indivi-
dual thought that goes into every analysis. If standardized

procedures could be stipulated for the user of the PAS Model

60

in theoretical analysis, its comparative force could be
greatly increased.

Another difficulty that a reader might encounter when
reading a thesis or work of this type is the matter of style.
By the nature of the task, the writings of any author being
analyzed will have to be segmented. The reader cannot get a
graSp of the whole by simply adding up the parts. For this
reason an overall statement concerning the methods, techni-
ques, and theoretical framework of the authors under con-
sideration should accompany any analysis of this type.

This writer has not found a way to eliminate this problem of
segmentation and still, at the same time, accomplish an ade-
quate analysis.

In conclusion, some of the "latent" functions of the
PAS Model should be mentioned. When one has completed an
analysis using this model, he will never again be satisfied
with just "scanningf_the literature. This model forces you
to look beyond the surface; you must read betWeen and "under"
the lines. It aids you in organizing your thoughts within
a certain framework. It emphasizes the importance of clear
conceptualization. You appreciate a sound analysis and de-
plore a poor one. In the final analysis, the long run
utility of this model may be in its effectiveness as a teach-

ing and learning device.

GLOSSARY

Adjustments, primary-~This is a process by which an individual
adjusts to the organization in a cooperating manner. He
gives and gets, in an appropriate Spirit, what has been
systematically planned for him, whether this entails
much or little of himself.

Adjustments, secondary--This is a process by which an indivi-
dual adjusts to the organization in an unc00perating
manner. It is any habitual arrangement by which a
member of an organization employs unauthorized means,
or obtains unauthorized ends, or both, thus getting
around the organization's assumptions as to what he
should do and get and hence, what he should be. This
process has also been referred to as "informal" or
"unofficial."

Appearance--A part of the front which refers to those stimuli
which function at the time of the performance tthell.
the observer the performer's social_state.

. ..

Career--This is any social strand of a person's course through
life.

Cooling out-~This is a process by which one individual attempts
to define the situation for another (called the "mark")
in a way that makes it easier for him to accept the loss
of a status—role.

Deference--That component of activity which functions as a
Symbolic means by which appreciation is regularly con-
veyed to a recipient, of this recipient, or something
of which this recipient is taken as a symbol, ex-
tension of agent.

Definition of the situation--Goffman utilizes the same
definition of this phrase that was used by W. 1. Thomas.
“Preliminary to any self-determined act of behavior
there is always a stage of examination and deliberation
which we call the definition of the situation. And
actually not only concrete acts are dependent on the
definition of the situation, but gradually a whole life-
policy and personality of the individual himself
follows from a series of such definitions."

61

62

\\Demeanor--That element of the individual's ceremonial be-
havior typically conveyed through deportment, dress,
and bearing which serves to express to those in his
immediate presence that he is a person of certain de-
sirable or undesirable qualities.

Dramaturgical model--An abstract method of presenting social
“action which employs the basic fundamental concepts
and processes of a theatrical performance.

 

"M 41"“ ”r .m :- u ran—a, ~. ’--u

Encounter, socia1--A natural unit of social organization. It
involves: a single visual and cognitive focus of at-
tention, a mutual relevance of acts, and eye-to-eye
ecological huddle that maximizes each participant's
opportunity to perceive the other participant's
monitoring of him.

Euphoria--A state in which the world made up of objects of
our Spontaneous involvement and the world carved out of
the encounter's transformation rules (norms) are congru-
ent, one coinciding perfectly with the other.

Face--The positive social value a person effectively claims
for himself by the line others assume he has taken
during a particular contact.

FrontcuThe expressive equipment of a standard kind, intention-
ally or unwittingly employed by the individual during
his performance.

Focused gathering or gathering--Synonymous with encounter
(see above).

Home world-~Used in the context of total institutions and
signifies the external world in which the inmate lived
before entering the institution.

Incident--The reciprocal influence of individuals upon one
another's actions when in one another's immediate
physical presence.

Interaction membrane--A metaphorical phrase used to signify
the boundary maintaining function of the transformation
rules in a social encounter. This membrane serves to
control the flow of externally relevant sentiments and
beliefs from their entrance into the interaction.

Interchange--The sequence of acts set in motion by acknow-
ledged threats to the face, and termination in the
re-establishment of ritual equilibrium.

63

Ma_nner——Those stimuli which function during the performance
to warn the-obserVer of the interactional role the ”
performer will expect to play in the oncoming situ-
ation.

Mark--A term used to signify an individual who has discovered
that he has been disqualified for a status-role.

Permeability--Used in the context of total institutions to
signify the degree to which the social standards main-
tained within the institution and the social standards
maintained in the environing society have influenced
each other, the consequence being to minimize the
differences.

Proactive status--Used in the context of total institutions
to signify the status-role and rank of an individual
in the external society once he has been an inmate.
The individual must learn that his social position on
the outside will never again be quite what it was
prior to entrance.

Ritual--Activities through whose symbolic component the
actor shows how worthy he is of respect or how worthy
he feels others are of it.

Ritual, avoidance--Refers to those forms of deference (see
above) which lead the actor to keep at a distance from
the recipient and not violate the area of privacy that
lies around him.

Ritual, presentation--Refers to those forms of deference
(see above) through which the individual makes specific
attestations to recipients concerning how he regards
them and how he will treat them in the oncoming inter-
action.

Role--The activity of an encumbent of a position would engage
in if he were to act solely in terms of the normative
demands upon someone occupying that position.

Role, commitment--In a restricted sense it signifies the im-
personally enforced structural arrangements by which a
person takes on a role.

Role, distance--Actions which effectively convey some dis-
dainful detachment of the performer from a role he is
performing.

Role, embracement--This involves actions which signify that
an actor is attached to a role, has the qualifications
and capacities for performing it, and shows an active
engagement or Spontaneous involvement in the role
activity.

64

Role, others--This is the category of individuals which the
role performer deems significant to him in the role
enactment process.

Role, regular performance of--The enacting of the prescribed
normative eXpectationS of a role.

Role, regular performer of a--An actor consistently performs
the same role on prescribed occasions (e.g., a funeral
director).

Setting—-Inthe context of the performance it is the,furni-
ture, decorum, physical layout, and other background
items which supply the scenery and stage props for the

Spate of human action played out before, within, or
upon it.

Social establishment--Any place surrounded by fixed barriers
to perception and in which a particular kind of
activity regularly takes place.

,Status--A position in some system or pattern of positions
which is related to the other positions in the unit
through reciprocal ties, through rights and dutieséj;
-binding on the encumbents.

Status symbol--A means of diSplaying one 5 position, a sign-
vehicle or a cue which selects for a person the status
(rank) that is to be imputed to him and way in which
others are to treat him.

Transformation rules (norms)--In the geometrical sense of
that term, these being rules, both inhibitory and
facilitating that tell us what modification in shape
will occur when an external pattern of properties is
given expression inside the encounter.

Total institution--It is a social establishment which is
recognized by the following characteristics:

1. All aSpects of life are conducted in the same
place and under the same authority.

2. Each phase of the member's daily activities is
carried on in the immediate company of a large
batch of others, all of whom are treated alike
and required to do the same things together.

3. All phases of the day' 5 activities are tightly
scheduled, with one activity leading to a pre-
arranged time into the next, the whole sequence
of activities being imposed from above by a
system of explicit formal rules and a body of

' officials.

65

The various enforced activities are brought to-
gether into a single rational plan purportedly
designed to fulfill the official aims of the
institution.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL KEY

"A-Erving Goffman, Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation
of Mental Patients and Other Inmates (Garden City:
Doubleday anHCCOmpany, 1961).

 

AI-Erving Goffman, "Alienation from Interaction,” Human
Relations, Vol. 10 (1957), 47-60.

GHQ-Erving Goffman, "On Cooling the Mark Out: Some ASpects
of Adaption to Failure," Psychiatry, Vol. 15 (November,
1952), 451-463.

 

DD-Erving Goffman, "The Nature of Deference and Demeanor,"
American Anthropologist, Vol. 58 (June, 1956), 473-502.

E-Erving Goffman, Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology
of Interaction (Indianapolis:. BObbs4Werrill Company,
1961).

 

ESQ-Erving Goffman, "Embarrassment and Social Organization,”
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 62 (November, 1956),
264—271.

 

IP-Erving Goffman, "Interpersonal Persuasion," in Bertram
Schaffner (ed.), Group Processes (New York: The Josiah
Macy, Junior Foundation, 1956), 117-196.

 

OFW-Erving Goffman, "On Face Work: An Analysis of Ritual
Elements in Social Interaction," Psychiatry, Vol. 18
(August, 1955), 213-231. '

 

SCS—Erving Goffman, "Symbols of Class Status," British
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 2 (1951), 294-30 .

 

SELF-Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday
Life (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1959).

 

NOTES

1. C. P. Loomis, Social Systems (New York: D. Van
Nostrand Co., Inc., 1960).

2. C. P. and Zona K. Loomis, Modern Social Theories
(New York: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1961).

3. R. K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure
(Glencoe: The Free Press,’1957), p. 20.

n

 

 

 

66

67

4. Ibid. Merton is writing Specifically of the termin—
ological confusion concerning the word "function," but his
discussion is applicable to many other cases in sociological
theory.

5. Erving Goffman, ”Interpersonal Persuasion," in
Bertram Schaffner (ed.), Group Processes (New York: The Josiah
Macy, Jr. Foundation, 1956), p. 12]

6. Erving Goffman, Asylums: Essays on the Social
Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates (Garden City:
Doubleday and COmpany, 1961), p. x. Hereafter referred to
as A. .

7.‘ See Don Martindale, The Nature and Types of Socio-
logical Theory (Boston: Houghton Mifflin and Company, 1960),
pp. 334-75 for a more than adequate exposition concerning
this branch of social behaviorism.

8. Erving Goffman, "Symbols of Class Status," British
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 2 (1951), p. 295. Hereafter
referred to as’SCS.

 

 

 

 

 

9. Ibid. 10. Ibid., p. 297-301.
11. TBIE. 12. 1813., p. 304.
13. 1613. 14. T613.

15. Erv1ng Goffman, "On Cooling the Mark Out: Some
Aspects of Adaptation to Failure," Psychiatry, Vol. 15
(November, 1952). Hereafter referredito as CMO.

 

16. Ibid., p. 482. 17. Ibid., p. 504.
18. Ib1d., p. 503. 19. Ibid., p. 504.

20. ErV1ng Goffman, "On Face Work: An Analysis of Ritual
Elements in Social Interaction," Psychiatry, Vol. 18 (August,
1955). Hereafter referred to as OFW.

21. Ibid., p. 213 22. -Ibid.

23. 1615., p. 221. "7‘

24. ErV1ng Goffman, “The Nature of Deference and De-
meanor," American Anthropologist, Vol. 58 (June, 1956).
Hereafter referred to as DD.

25. Erving Goffman, "Embarrassment and Social Organiz-
ation," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 62 (November,
1956). Hereafter referred to as ESO.

 

 

 

26. Ibid., p. 265. 27. Ibid., p. 270.
28. 1513., p. 265. 29. TBIH., p. 271.

30. Erv1ng Goffman, "Alienation from Interaction,"
Human Relations, Vol. 10 (1957), p. 47. Hereafter referred
to as AI.

31. Ibid., pp. 49-53. 32. Ibid., p. 59.

33. A., p. 89. 34. Ibla.

35. Erving Goffman, The Presentat1on of Self in Every-
da Life (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1959), p. 17.
Hereafter referred to as SELF.

36. Ibid., p. 19. - 37. Ibid.
~- 38. XL; p. 90. 39. 'TEIE., p. 207.
40. Ibid., p. 90. 41. SEEF, p. 21.
42. ‘KTT'p. 222. 43. Ibid., p. 227.
44. OFW. 45. TBIE., p. 221.
46. SELF, p. 26. 47. UFWT, 00., ESO., AI.

48. ~CMO., p. 489. 49. Ibid., p. 498.

 

 

50. Ibid., p. 499
52. Ibid., p. 52.
54. Ibid., p. 45.
56. Ibid., p 41
58. Ib1d.

60. A., P. 65f

62. OFW., p. 213.
64. A., p. 71.

66. Ibid., p. 92.
68. Ibid., p. 85.
70. A., p. 176.
72. DD., p. 496.
74. DD., p. 473.
76. Ibid.

78. Ib1 .

80. Ibid.

82. Ibid., p.31.
84. Ibid.

86. Ib1d., p. 219.
87. Rob1n W. Williams,

Knopf, 1960), PP. 372-96.

88. A., p. 200.
90. Ibid., p. 108.
92. Ibid.

94.» Ib1d.

96. SEEP., p. 75.
98. Ibid., p. 146.
100. ., p. 201.
102. Ibid., p. 167.
104. T638.
106. A., p. 162.
108. Ibid., p. 481.
110. T538.

112. 868: p. 297.
114. A., pp. 49-51.
116. Ibid.

118. A., p. 115.
120. Ibid., p. 115.
122. E., p. 28.

124. Ibid., p. 102.
126. DD., p. 497.
128. A., p.102.
130. Ibid., p.102.
132. Ib1d. , p.28.
134. Ibid.

136. OFW., p. 224.
138. Ibid., p. 257.
140. Ibid., p. 258.
142. DD., p. 481.
144. A., p. .

146. Ibid., p. 481.
148. 151d., p 66.
150. Ibid., p. 26.
152. SEEF., p. 106

68

51.
53.
55.
57.
59.
61.
63.
65.
67.
69.
71.
73.
75.
77.
79.
81.
83.
85.

Ibid. , pp. 493— 5.
E., p.45.
Ibid., p. 55.
Ibid., p. 48.
Ibid., p. 64.
DD., p. 478.
Ibid., p.213.
Ib1d. , p.76.
SELF., p. 27.
Ibid.

Ib""1"'d. , p. 177 :l

 

Ibid , p. 476
Ib1d.

SEES, p. 107
E., p. 20

A., p. 89
Ibid.

Jr., American Society (New York:

89.

91.

93.

95.

97.

99.
101.
103.
105.
107.
109.
111.
113.
115.
117.
119.
121.
123.
125.
127.
129.
131.
133.

135:.

137.
139.
141.
143.
145.
147.
149.
151.
153.

 

E., p. 93.
Ibid.
E., p. 110.
Ibid.
Ib1d., p. 145.
SCST, p. 294.
Ibid.
DD., p. 497.
Ibid.
55., p. 489.
SHf.,p.84.
A., p. 263.
AI., assim.
SELF £77708
SCS., p. 296.
Ibid., p. 42.
., p. 201.
Ibid.
A., p. 248.
Ibid., p. 498.
Ib1d., p. 103f.

 

E., p. 28.
DD., p. 475.
E50,, p. 267.
A., p. 158.
Ibid.

SELF., p. 141
E., p. 66
DD., p. 487
E., p. 30.
A,p.9.
E50,, p. 270
A., p. 119

69

 

154. Ibid., p. 120. 155.
156. A., p. 80. 157.
158. SELF., p. 27. 159.
160. A., p. 127. 161.
162. Ibid., p. 148. 163.
164. I 1d., p. 73. 165.
166. A., p. 38. 167.
168. Ibid., p. 22. 169.
170. Ibid., p. 228. 171.
172. E., p. 8. 173.
174. Ibid., p. 10. 175.
176. K., p. 212.

 

 

I‘I'ltl

“€50 GER ESE 03m

 

 

 

 

u l fitifil’liflig'nmlyyzfliflfl 1111111111»

08906