v...

 

 

 

   

     

‘m
.4.

u-Lu»
.A .

 

THES‘S

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A DRAMATURGICAL ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMSOLVING INSTITUTIONS

presented by

JESSICA A. LEE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Maqurq degree in Socmlog¥_'

 

Mljor prefessor

j)“ Wfi? [MW
Date %M (Z) [42 99/

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

31293 01033 6703 r

 

LIBRARY
. Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

‘ w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

|

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

A DRAMATURGICAL ANALYSIS
OF
PROBLEM-SOLVING INSTITUTIONS

by
Jessica A. Lee

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1994

 

 

ABSTRACT
A DRAMATURGICAL ANALYSIS OF PROBLEM SOLVING INSTITUTIONS
b y

Jessica A. Lee

How society manages troubles has fascinated sociologists since
Durkheim. The following analysis looks at how problems are coped
with, in terms of the individual and the public. Two abstract types
are compared, the Total Institution described by Erving Goffman in
the book Asylums (1961) and the Public Institution, derived by my
observations from a state senate in the Midwest. The two are
compared using Kenneth Burke's Dramatistic Pentad, which
delineates five elements of a dramaturgical phenomena - the scene,
act, agents, agency and purpose (1952, px). My observations, when
compared to the Total Institution through the dramaturgical
dimensions of Burke's pentad, reveal that the dramaturgical
processes by which institutions address problems and respond to the

external environment is remarkably similar.

Copyright by
JESSICA A. LEE

1994

 

In memory of Mary "You'll be in School Forever" Torsok

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply indebted to Dr. Peter K. Manning, for his
intellectual guidance and immeasurable kindness through-out my
graduate career. I would also like to thank Dr. Bo Anderson for his
academic contributions and unwavering reassurance as I wrote the
paper. Thanks to Dr. Chris Vanderpoole and Dr. Taffy McCoy for their
input, and the staff of the Collegiate Employment Research Institute,
for granting me the flexibility needed to complete the paper. Last,
but not least, I would like to thank my family, my room-mate
Kristyn Newhouse, and my friends for their support, encouragement

and incredible patience as I completed work on this paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................... p.1
2. Methods ........................................................................ p.4
3. Analysis ........................................................................ p.7
a. scene .................................................................. p.7
b. agents ................................................................ p.10
c. act ........................................................................ p.15
d. agency ............................................................... p.21
e. purpose ............................................................. p.25
4. Conclusion .................................................................... p.27
5. List of References ..................................................... p.31

vi

LIST OF TABLES

1. Table 1 ......................................................................... p.30

vii

 

Introduction

How a society manages troubles has fascinated
sociologists since Durkheim. Sociologists have constructed a wide
variety of theories to understand how things come to be defined as
problematic and created institutions to go about coping with these
troubles, both in the public and private realm. The following analysis
seeks to compare two types of institutions, the total institution and
the public institution, to see how they manage private and public
troubles from a dramaturgical perspective. The works of C. Wright
Mills, Kenneth Burke and Erving Goffman provide the foundation for
the analysis.

In his work The Sociological Imagination, C. Wright Mills
makes a useful distinction between private and public troubles

which will be utilized in the following analysis:

Troubles occur within the character of the individual and
within the range of his immediate relations with others;
they have to do with his self and with those limited areas
of social life of which he is directly and personally aware.
Accordingly, the statement and resolution of troubles
properly lie with the individual as a biographical entity....
A trouble is a private matter: values cherished by an
individual are felt by him to be threatened.

Issues have to do with matters that transcend these

local environments.... They have to do with the
organization of many such milieux into the institutions of
an historical society as a whole,with the ways in which
various milieux overlap and interpenetrate to form the
larger structure of social and historical life. An issue is a
public matter: some value cherished by publics is felt to
be threatened (Mills 1959, p8).

Thus, private troubles are distinct from public troubles

2

because both the problem and solution reside within the individual;
whereas public 'issues' are addressed via institutions. In this
analysis, we look to Goffman's discussions of asylums as a social type,
as the means by which individuals cope with their troubles. The
addressing of public problems is embodied in a complex system of
government designed ultimately to address these issues. Specifically,
we will consider how public issues are managed through the state
senate of a large Midwestern state.* While considerable debate exists
in both spheres about the efficacy of each, both are established
institutions in our society.

An understanding of each, considered here as abstract
types, is important as similarities and differences reveal much about
how American society copes with its troubles. Abstract or social
types has a long tradition in Sociology, dating back to Max Weber
(Becker and Barnes 1952, p893) as a technique or tool by which one
can explore the particular traits of a phenomena to gain a more
generalized understanding of greater social processes involved. In
using ideal types, one must Specify the like dimensions that unlike

phenomena share, as explained by Kenneth Burke, in his work

Permanence and Change:

Abstractions mean literally ‘drawing from.’ Whenever a
similar strain can be discerned in dissimilar events
('drawn from them') we can classify the events together
on the basis of this common abstraction. And the
particular strains which we select as significant depend
on the nature of our interests (Burkel954, p104).

 

* The private side of senators' lives was explored in the book US. Senators and
Their World, by Donald R. Matthews, Vintage Books, 1960. I was not aware of
work focusing on the public side of the senate and thus created my own
framework.

3
sessions in a large Midwestern state will represent institutions that
cope with public troubles. By using the total and public institutions
as abstract types, we are able to analyze how the internal processes
and external environment of each affect the dramaturgical
organization of problems.

Kenneth Burke's "Dramatistic Pentad" (Burke 1952, px)
delineates five terms of analysis from a dramatistic approach,
allowing one to "inquire into the purely internal relationships which
the five terms bear to one another, considering their possibilities of
transformation, their range of permutations and combinations"
(Burke 1952, pxi). He categorizes the five elements as agent, act,
scene, agency and purpose, describing each and their relationship to

one another briefly:

act (names what took place, in thought and deed). . .
scene (the background of the act, the situation in which it
occurred). . . what person or kind of person (agent)
performed the act, what means or instruments he used
(agency), and the purpose (Burke 1952, px).

Burke's dramatistic pentad, as shown in Table 1, provides

the ‘similar strain' by which the 'dissimilar' abstract types of private
and public institutions can be classified (Burke 1954, p104) through
the five dramaturgical dimensions - the scene, agents, act, agency
and purpose. The scene of the total institution is a private setting,
whereas the public institution is open to all. The agents of both
institutions include the representatives of the institution, the
significant others, the staff and those who provide the institution

with troubles (the patients and public). The act of both includes

4

problem diagnoses or definition, and attempts to find or define
solutions. The agency through which the agents act are found in the
perceptions of legitimacy and authority. The purpose of both public
and private institutions is to cope with troubles. As a result, we are
able to see how the internal, dramaturgical processes of the two
problem-solving institutions are cognate.
Methods

Public conditions and interactions are inherently dramatic,
in both form and content. Therefore, I chose to study the public
activities of taking place at the Capitol building of a large,
Midwestern state, focusing primarily on the senate sessions. For eight
weeks, from October 1993 to December 1993, I observed the public
sessions of the State Senate for a Qualitative Methods class.
Observation as a method was suited for the dramaturgical approach,
because of the focus on visible, public behavior that exists in the
setting. As I began my observations, immediately I noticed the
behavior of the agents was unusual for a public workplace; I watched
the members, who were presumably working, as they walked
around, talked on the phone, read the paper and ate (Observation 1,
pl ) while the sessions were in progress. I decided to explore how the
dimensions of a public institution affect the behavior of those
involved in the setting.

I observed the sessions from the 'gallery' — the seating
area complete with glass balcony on the third story of the Capitol
building - overlooking the 'floor' - the arena in which the senators
hold session at 10 am three days a week, nine months of the year.

The senate provides a fairly fixed group of individuals, with

5
fixed seating arrangements. It consists of thirty eight elected
individuals, 16 Democrats and 22 Republicans. The demographic
make-up of the senate is fairly predictable. The three Black
American senators are all male, Democrat and from districts in the
Detroit area. Two of the three women senators are Democrat and all
are from districts with universities.

My weekly observations produced notes totaling 173 single
spaced pages and 20.5 hours spent merely observing. In addition, I
conducted three informal interviews, with a lobbyist, an audience
member and senate staff member. These were spontaneous, informal
conversations without prepared questions, most lasting about thirty
minutes or less; I asked and was given consent to use the
information in my notes. The information attained was invaluable at
various points in my study, to gain insight into what I was watching.

I also attended two rallies, which take place on the front
steps of the Capitol building. These were conducted by interest
groups seeking to publicize their cause. I took two tours of the
Capitol building. The tours provided information on the larger setting
in which the sessions take place - the Capitol building itself.

In addition, I formally interviewed a member of the
senate staff and a member of the Capitol staff, a tour guide. These
interviews differed from informal interviews because they included
verbal requests for interviews, pre-arranged meetings, prepared
questions, tape-recording and formal consent forms. The knowledge,
accessibility and all around importance of senatorial aides and other
staff was promoted as a viable alternative to more prominent

members of the setting in the book Elite and Specialized

6

Interviewing by Lewis Dexter pg. 76).* This proved to be helpful in
my circumstances, as time and status constraints prevented meeting
and establishing a rapport senators.

In my weekly notes, I revised the coding paradigm
delineated by Strauss and Corbin (1990, p96 - 107) and analyzed
every individual observation in terms of conditions, consequences,
strategies, interactions, adding other categories and notes as I saw fit.
Eventually, I began to focus on strategies and interactions, and how
these were affected by the conditions of the setting, or were
consequences of the setting. The coding paradigm allowed me to
interpret how the external environment affects the internal actions
and interactions of the senate. For example, during a recess, I

witnessed an argument between two senators:

J: I am not open to a burden on anything. Shit
you're. . .

He interrupts, but I can't hear what he says.

J: Shit, I know it! Shit, I know it!

(backstage behaviors in front stage setting;
interaction among equals; consequence of the recess;
condition - both are insiders; strategy - he is trying
to sway her opinion and its not working. . . . )
(Observation 8, p9).

In this way, the paradigm allowed for the analyses of outside
influences on dramatic behaviors.

Another helpful technique used was noting the 'negative
case' - discussing the properties of the behaviors being observed and

how these behaviors or consequences might differ in another setting

 

* This strategy was also relied upon heavily in the book The Bretheren , by Bob
Woodward, Simon & Schuster, 1979.

7
(Emerson 1983, p96), or how a 'negative case' demonstrates the
norms of behavior in a setting. For example, in my seventh week of
observations, I noticed a group of adults standing in the balcony area
with their backs to the floor (the arena in which the sessions take
place) listening to a man in a three piece suit speaking. I realized this
was the first time I had ever seen audience members not watching
the sessions; thus their stance indicated taken-for—granted audience
behavior by not engaging in it (Observation 7, p2).

Ultimately, my observations of public behavior in public
problem-solving institutions are consistent with the dramaturgical
approach, and reflect how external environments affect the
dramaturgical processes of an institution created for the purpose of
coping with troubles.

Analysis

For clarity's sake, the order of Burke's pentad has been re
arranged, considering first the scene, then the agents, the act, the
agency and lastly the purpose. Goffman's typology of the total
institution (Goffman 1961) will be compared and contrasted to the
senate sessions, which are considered representative of public
institutions.

The similarities and differences between the abstract
types develop a dramaturgical understanding of the process of
problem-solving for public and private institutions and how the
external environments affect these processes.

&e_ne

Burke defines the scene as the setting in which the agents

8

must act (1952, p135). Goffman describes the scene of the Total
Institution a broad typology of traits; these traits can then be
translated to the public institution, though obvious differences exist
among the two.

In the article "Characteristics of the Total Institution,"
Goffman (Asylums, 1961) begins by defining the total institution as
having characteristics which he derives from observations within a
mental asylum and generalizes to fit all total institutions. The total
institution's main distinguishing feature "is symbolized by the
barrier to social intercourse" (Goffman 1961, p4). In any total
institution, all activity is planned for the individual, conducted with
the group, and takes place on the premises. Contact with the outside
world is restricted - in terms of physical barriers, communication,
contact with significant others. The purpose of all activities is
"designed to fulfill the official aims of the institution" (Goffman 1961,
p6).

In contrast to the private institution, the public institution
is an inherently more open setting. As Mills points out, individual
troubles "lie within the individual as biographical entity" (Mills 1959,
p8); the scene of the private institution reflects this, through the
highly regulated, defensive nature of the setting which Goffman
describes. The public institution, as Mills explains, deals with
"matters that transcend these local environments" (Mills 1959, p8).
As a result, the scene allows for public access, diverse roles and
groups, and more autonomy than the private institution, because the

troubles addressed are considered to be relevant to all.

9

The senate sessions contrast markedly with the total institution
setting described by Goffman. Since the Capitol is open to the public,
one wander through with little notice from the Capitol staff. The
senate sessions are open to the public, and audiences can view the
'floor' from the balcony above. The balconies themselves are made
of glass, and projections outlining the activities are shown on the wall
above the press box (Observation 2, p10). Although social
intercourse with a senator is rare, it can be arranged (A Citizens

Guide to State Government p.1). Thus, unlike the total institution,

 

the public institution is physically and visually accessible to most
anyone.

Unlike the total institution, the public institution lacks
consistent regimentation of activity. Although rules are followed and
authority exists to preserve order (via the sergeant-at-arms and the
lieutenant governor), the action on the floor is continuous, dynamic

and lacking in coherence, as my initial observations indicate:

I am having difficulty determining any order, because
the masses of men in suits were milling about, standing,
sitting, talking on the phone, typing on computers, and
chatting amongst themselves. People are not facing any
particular direction, collectively, and thus I can't tell who
is in charge... I can hear a male voice and female voice
reading off bill numbers and committee assignments, but
I can't distinguish who is talking (Observation 1, p1).

Unlike the total institution, activities are loosely structured
and not necessarily conducted within the group. The individual
autonomy of the senator is respected (Interview 2, p10).

The senators must work with their colleagues, especially

1 0
within their political party (Interview 2, p6). Also, while voting itself
must take place on the premises, a vast majority of the work
senators do takes place elsewhere - within the committees, through
the party caucus, in private offices (Interview 2, p13).

Contact with the outside world is mandatory for the
senators. Most senators can be seen reading the paper and talking on
the phone, and disappearing from the floor into side rooms and
hallways to interact with one another and outsiders through-out the
session (Observation 1, p11).

However, like the mental institution described by
Goffman, the purpose of all activities is "designed to fulfill the
official aims of the institution" (Goffman 1961, p6). These activities
are considered a necessary part of the job, "to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the public" (Interview 2, p8).

Thus the external environment - the role the public plays in
the everyday work of the institutions - affects dramaturgical
processes of the institutions. In the private institution, a defensive,
highly regulated setting is required to guard individuals with private
troubles from public attention. In the public institution, the public
access is considered necessary as part of the work processes, and is
acknowledged to the extent that is taken-for granted during the
sessions (Interview 2, p18). Thus the scene, from a dramaturgical
perspective, varies considerably from private to public institutions.

Agents
Since agents, or those who act within the scene, are a
necessary component of the act, a description of the agents and roles

in each domain is necessary. The agents are the actors in a particular

1 1
scene. In both settings, the agents have institutionally proscribed
roles which existed before the individual came into the setting, and
will continue to exist after the individual leaves. This includes a
hierarchy of power, rules governing conduct, both towards other
agents in the institution and for the public, and uniforms or dress
codes (formal or informal).

In the Total Institution, the agents consist of the
representatives of the institution, the staff, significant others of the
patient and the patient. Goffman describes a distinct staff and
patient dichotomy. Generally, there is a large number of 'inmates', as
he calls them, and few staff. He notes that "social mobility between
the two strata is grossly restricted" (Goffman 1961, p7).

In the senate sessions, the agents include the senators and
their staff, the Capitol staff and the public. Like the patient — staff
dichotomy in the total institution, the public, like the patient, often
sees the senators, like the staff of the Institution, in a "cynical view"
(Interview 1, p26)

In Goffman's descriptions, the representatives of the
total institution are responsible for contact with the significant others
of the patient and for the public image of the institution. Their work
consists "dramatic idealization," which entails presenting through a
front "some rather abstract claims upon the audience. . . (the)
performance is 'socialized,‘ molded, and modified to fit into the
understanding and expectations of the society in which it is
presented" (Goffman 1959, p34).

The direct care staff, according to Goffman, are particularly

l 2

important in the discussion of total institutions, because the
"contradiction between what the institution does and what its
officials must say it does forms the basic context of the staff‘s daily
activity"(l96l, p74). Goffman notes in his work Presentation of Self
in Everyday Life, "if an individual is to give expression to ideal
standards during his performance, then he will have to forgo or
conceal action which is inconsistent with these standards" (1959,
p41). The staff in the total institution is responsible for helping the
representatives in the maintenance of the front presented, as well as
maintaining the routines of everyday life within the institution.
The staff is responsible for the surveillance of the
patient (1961, p38) and the "regimentation" of daily life in the
asylum (1961, p38). Since the staff has the most contact with the
patient, Goffman notes they must engage in 'role distance' (1961)
from the patients in order to separate themselves. In doing so, the
staff becomes part of the "alienative coalition" Goffman describes in
his work "The Moral Career of the Mental Patient" (1961, p137). This
coalition, formed along with representatives of the asylum and by
the patient's significant others, convince the patient that he is sick
and in need of help; the formation of this coalition marks the
beginning of the "moral career" of the patient, the process by which
his or her conception of self is destroyed (1961, p165).

The significant others are the sources of authority over the
patient, since they were responsible for the patient's commitment
(Yarrow, Schwartz, Murphy and Deasy, 1955). The significant others

grant the staff and representatives the legitimacy to help the patient

l 3
with his or her troubles. The three groups coalesce to cope with the
patient‘s private troubles (Goffman 1961, p144).

The patient functions in two respects. First, the individual
patient provides the Institution with troubles that require correcting.
He or she, through actions, provides justification for the Institution.
Second, while in the Institution, the patients must subscribe to a
pattern of behavior that means admitting illness and seeking results
(Goffman 1961, p 150).

Similar roles are found in the abstract type of the senate.

Like the representatives to the public in the total institution, the
senators, are, in theory responsible for public image, which an
inherent responsibility of elected office. Their work, like the
representatives of the total institution, requires the presentation of a
"performance (that) will tend to incorporate and exemplify the
officially accredited values of the society, more so, in fact, than
(their) behavior as a whole" (Goffman 1959, p35).

Specifically, their presence is required three days a week at the
public sessions, to pass laws dealing with public troubles of the
state's citizens. Like the representatives of the total institution, the
senators, function to deal with problems and/to mediate between the
public and the institution. They have the legitimacy through their
role and thus their claims to authority to define or, in the case of
institutions, diagnose the troubles and implement solutions.

However, unlike the representatives of the total
institution, the senators are responsible more for their own image or
performance than that of the institution. The 'idealization' of the

public institution falls upon the capitol staff. The Capitol staff is

14

"mainly public relations for the government" (Interview 1, p 26).
Thus they function with the senators and their staff like a team
"insofar as they co—operate in maintaining a given impression"
(Goffman 1959, p84).In addition, they function like the total
institution staff by carrying out the contradictions between ideology
and reality, as they are responsible for the maintenence of everyday
life at the Capitol.

The Capitol staff includes tour guides, guards, the
Legislative Services bureau, and the Lieutenant Governor. Though
their job duties are diverse in nature, all serve the function of
making sure the Capitol runs smoothly on a day to day basis, and
presenting a favorable public image for the immediate audience
(Interview 1, p26). They are responsible for enforcing the rules of
the Capitol, over the public and the elected officials and their staff.
The responsibility of maintaining a front, or "dramatic realization"
includes "concealing action which is inconsistent with these (ideal)
standards" (Goffman 1959, p41).

The role of senator requires a personal staff to help with
the work of researching bills, mediating to constituents (the public)
and campaigning. Similar to the total institution, the Capitol staff and
the senate staff are responsible for carrying out the work of their
organization, including contradictions between ideology and reality.
The staff functions to distance the senator from the public, by
dealing with the public in place of the senator and presenting a
favorable image of the senator for the public. The Capitol staff
promotes the ideology of accessibility for the state government in

general, since the Capitol building embodies state government. Both

l 5
the capitol staff and the senate staff function like the staff in the
total institution, because they provide maintenance of everyday life
in the institution.

The politically active public serves as a significant other, in
that it grants the authority to rule over public troubles. This includes
interest groups, lobbyists and those individuals who draw attention
to public troubles and play a role in the agenda setting of the state.*

The public itself is similar to the patient in the Institution
in that, through its role, it must accept the identity and the reality
set forth by the institution. Problems are defined for the patient and
the public must accept the diagnosis. Both the patient and the public
are acted upon (Zuboff 1988) playing passive roles in the process of
problem definition.

Thus, whether public or private, each institution has consistent
dramaturgical roles - the representatives, staff, significant others and
passive recipients (patient and public) when coping with problems.
The activities of the roles vary somewhat in actual content, according
to the public or private nature of the institution, thereby reflecting
the effect of the external environment on the dramaturgical
requirements of the agents.

A_c_t

The act, according to Burke, is the "terministic center" of
dramaturgical analysis (1952, px). It is the actors' behaviors in a
setting. The act signals a dramaturgical phenomena, leading to

consideration of the other dimensions of the event. This paper

 

Political science literature has shown this repeatedly and effectively, and it
is not within the scope of this analysis to pursue the topic further.

l 6
utilizes the notion of "the act" in a broad sense, as a sequence of
symbolic actions or interactions that indicate the other elements in
the dramaturgical process.

In both settings there is a progression of acts which the
various agents undertake to deal with troubles, both public and
private. First, troubles must be made known. Then the process of
diagnosis is undertaken. Next, solutions are suggested and
implemented. Finally, we consider the role of the patient/public in
the process of the act.

Troubles or problems arise when we sense something is not
"how it ought to be," which Burke calls "piety (Burke 1954, p71). He

explains:

. . where the rational order of symbols would establish a
congruity wholly alien to the emotional order of symbols,
is it not possible that intense conflicts could arise? (Burke
1954, p73).

Similarly, Mills notes that when "values cherished" by a
person or collective are at risk, the matter becomes perceived as
problematic (Mills 1959, p8). Political sociologist Murray Edelman
points out that "problems come into discourse and therefore
existence as reinforcement of ideologies... They define the contours
of the social world. . . in the light of the diverse situations from which
people respond" (Edelman 1988, p12).

Troubles are made known to an institution primarily
through significant others. In the private setting, significant others

are usually first to notice unusual behaviors and seek the help of the

1 7
authorities when they feel they no longer can control the problem
(Yarrow, Radke, Schwartz, Murphy and Deasy, 1955).

In the public setting, troubles are made known to the
institution through the rallying of interest groups, through lobbyists
and other members of the politically active public, considered here
as the equivalent to the significant other in Goffman's work. The
representatives of the institution tend to reify the public (as in "the
public supports this bill"), when in fact they are referring to
significant others and their demands.

Like the significants of the mental patient, public
significant others usually have an interest or stake in whatever

ll

phenomena the problem is threatening. As Edelman notes the term
'problem' only thinly veils the sense in which deplored conditions
create opportunity" (Edelman 1988, p14).

The process of diagnosis is similar in both private and
public setting as well, in that for diagnosis to take place, the
significant others must convince the representatives of the
institution that the phenomena is problematic. In the mental
institution, patients enter after their behavior draws the attention of
the significant others and eventually the authorities (Goffman 1961,
p134). Diagnosis proceeds upon admittance to the institution, after
consultation with the significant others, who are asked to reconstruct
the patient's mental history in the context of mental illness (Yarrow,
Radke, Schwartz, Murphy and Deasy, 1955).

Diagnosis in the public sphere:

focuses upon a name for the undesirable condition or a
threat to well-being... (it) offers a ground for ignoring the

18

inconsistencies... The names... reflect and rationalize the
dominant pattern of ideologies (Edelman 1988, p 16).

Specifically, in the public sphere, diagnosis involves

convincing a senator to introduce legislation affecting the problem,
debate over whether or not it is in the institution's domain of
authority to regulate this problem (Observation 5, p13). If the
problem is considered relevant, the legislation is then sent to a
particular committee for further study. Committee meetings provide
the public significant others with the opportunity to testify about
why or how the issue is a public problem and to convince the public
representatives that it should be addressed (Interview 2, p8).

This process of solving problems involves the act of
redefinition. Both institutions, in defining a problem, have redefined
priorities to include the particular troubles raised.

In the mental institution, this process of solving troubles
for the mental patient involves a prepatient phase, characterized by
a sense of betrayal from the significant others' role in the patient's
commitment, and the significant's alliance with the institution's
personnel (Goffman 1961, p148). The next phase is the inpatient
phase, in which the patient "begins to learn the limited extent to
which a conception of oneself can be sustained when the usual
setting of supports for it are suddenly removed" (Goffman196l,
p148). Thus, the patient must redefine him or herself as an
individual with mental problems. Solutions follow depending on the
type of illness one is diagnosed with. Inmates of the institution

experience a redefinition of self mandated by their presence in a

19
total institution, as illustrated by Watson (1982) when studying

prisoners‘ responses to assessments for parole:

The most pressing problem for (some) prisoners is not
being refused parole but becoming so practiced in
working to obtain it that they lose any independent sense
of 'self' and any awareness of themselves as performers
with a self-conception that is separable from the

character that they present to others (Watson 1982,
p195)

In contrast, the solving of troubles in the public sphere is

more ambiguous:

. . the striking characteristic of the link between political
problems and solutions in everyday life is that the
solution typically comes first, chronologically and
psychologically... Goals are carrots and problems are
sticks; both are inducements to support measures that
people might other wise find painful, unwise, or
irrelevant (Edelmanl988, p 22).

More specifically, addressing issues entails debate over
possible impacts, resources available, and alternative solutions.
Priorities are redefined to include solving the particular problem.
At times an important institution of the entire state may be
redefined by legislation . Solutions mean receiving resources
from the state, greater attention from the media and public and
ultimately swaying the perceptions of all involved to consider this a
valid issue. Having a problem becomes an asset (Edelman 1988, p14).

With the patients and public, we have determined their
main act is being acted on (Zuboff 1988). Goffman describes the
entrance of the inmate into the world of the asylum as a "process of
mortification" (Goffman 1961, p43) the inmates sense of self is

destroyed, creating what he calls "role dispossession (Goffman 1961,

20
p14). In order to obtain release, one must reject the previous self,
accept the label of mental patient, and adopt the ideology of the
institution (Goffman 1961, p46). In this way, the total institution
redefines the reality of the patient.

Similarly, the public receives a reconstructed reality from
the public institution, "a facet of the concurrent formation of the self
and of the social sphere, integrally linked to the endless construction
and reconstruction of political causes, role structures, and moral
stances" (Edelman 1988, p17).

The process of diagnosis and solution implementation is
decidedly more private in the total institution, relying on the
alienative coalition to define the problem for the individual. The
public process of definition and redefinition is more visible and
dynamic, subject to debate, press coverage, and the like, as groups
struggle to protect or promote 'cherished values' (Mills 1959, p8).
As previously noted, debate abounds over definitions of
problems, the significance of the problems relative to other
problems, and how the public will be affected by the proposed
solution. The public is then handed what is considered to be a viable
solution, usually through the allocation of resources, for whatever
problems the senate and the significant others perceived .

Acts of resistance can be seen in both the patient
and the public. The inmate may consciously 'play their game' in
order to receive freedom (Watson 1990). The public can refuse to
cooperate by not voting (Edelman 1988, p8). Generally, however, the
public and the patient play a decidedly more passive role than the

other agents in problem definition and diagnosis, being acted upon.

2 1

Thus, the 'act‘ from a dramaturgical perSpective involves
making troubles known to the institution, through significant others,
diagnoses or the definition of the phenomena as problematic, and the
solution, which entails taking measures to redefine of the situation,
either biographically or in terms of public policy. In this way, the
total and public institution act dramaturgically by processually
redefining the social status of the patient or public.

Agm

Agency, as defined by Burke, refers to the means an actor
uses to act (Burke 1952, px). In both settings, we find the agency to
act comes from power residing in the role (Hughes 1958, p58), and in

the construction of problems:

The language that constructs a problem and provides an
origin for it is also a rationale for vesting authority in
people who claim some kind of competence (Edelman
1988, p20).

In the case of both institutions, the alienative coalition - the
institution's representatives and staff, and the Significant others -
derive its power act upon the patient or public by consent from the
significant others and from the legitimacy of the institution and its
representatives that is perceived by the public.

As Everett Hughes points out, with any occupation, the
individual claims "licence to carry out certain activities which others
may not. . . . Those who have such license will . . . also claim a
mandate to define what is proper conduct of others toward the
matters concerned with their work" (Hughes 1958, p78). Hughes
ideas of license and mandate can be extended beyond occupations to

include institutions. Members of both the total and public institutions

22
claim a license to cope with troubles and the mandate to define

'proper conduct,’ both of which lead to a:

moral division of labor; that is the processes by which
differing moral functions are distributed among the
members of society. . . . This division involves both the
setting of boundaries of realms of social behavior and the
allocation of responsibility over them (Hughes 1959,
p80).

Thus agency to act is derived from an exchange with the
public. The significant others grant the institution and its personnel
the license to cope with troubles, whether personal or public. The
institution, in turn, claims responsibility and power over everyday
problems, but must reassure the significants and the public in order
to maintain this authority.

The license and mandate from the significant others and the
general public are the means through which the total institution act
upon the mental patient. The patient's loss of rights that accompany
the his or her new status gives the total institution the authority to
act. The institution forces the patient to reject his/her previous
persona — which he finds manifested in possessions, style of dress,
contacts with others (Goffman 1961, p20). The ideology of the
asylum and of greater society served to justify these "assaults on the
self"; one's presence in the institution legitimates one‘s treatment
therein. Thus, the agency for the private alienative coalition resides
in the license and mandate derived from the loss of rights that
accompany the status of the mental patient.

The agency by which the public coalition acts also involves the

participation of the public significant others and ideology specifically,

23
the perception of legitimacy from the public, in terms of the
institution and of the problem (Edelman 1988, p32).

The significant others, in directing the attention of the public
representatives, redirect the problem from the private sphere to the
public sphere. This, Edelman notes, hinges on "audience acceptance"
that the phenomena is indeed an issue (Edelman 1988, p32) and that
government has the license and mandate (Hughes 1958, p78) to cope
with the troubles.

Unlike the patients in the total institution, the public has
certain rights over the representatives, as the officials derive
legitimacy to govern via public vote. In electing a candidate, the
public is expressing trust in the individual, in the office he or she will
hold, and in the institutions of government (Hughes 1958, p58). It
could be argued that the voting public falls under the category of the
public significant other, one who is politically active and plays a role
in the activity of the coalition. Regardless, the perception of trust and
legitimacy is necessary to grant the representative the power to
address public troubles. Whether or not the public chooses to
exercise their right to vote is personal preference, but not voting
may be indicative of cynicism or resistance (Edelman 1988, p7), i.e.
resisting the mandate of the institution. Nonetheless, the "disposition
to accept official interpretations of publicized actions about matters
remote from daily experience is a major source of legitimation"
(Edelman 1988, p25).

The formal means by which the representatives address public
troubles is voting during the public senate sessions. The act of voting

in public serves to reinforce the perceptions of trust among the

24
public and the legitimacy of the institution by showing "our
government at work" (Interview 2, p23). The informal
means by which the representatives address public issues is not
readily visible to the public. For example, informal agency takes

place through political parties:

(The) controlling party. . . votes on who is going to be
committee chairs. Then what happens is that whoever's
in charge, whoever's got the majority, gets their people
in. .The person who is chair can hold something and
not allow it to go to vote. . . . It will die. So there is a lot
of power-brokering. Whoever is in charge has a lot of
power (Interview 2, p16).

In this way, the senators are able to act, to define problems and
redefine everyday reality for the public, by controlling which bills
reach the floor. Other examples include voting, caucusing, i.e. how
party members decide to vote (Interview 2, p6), committee
meetings. It is through these practices that the legislature "gets
things done" (Interview 2, p7). Nonetheless, like the total
institution, the power granted to the agents in order to act is found in
license and mandate accompanying their roles and the institution,
consent of significant others and in the public's perception that the
institution is legitimate.

Thus both total and public institutions derive the agency to
act from authority and legitimacy that rests in the public's
perceptions. The reliance of the institution on the public for
legitimacy then requires the institutional personnel to act
dramaturgically, to present a 'dramatic idealization‘ (Goffman 1959,

p41 ) showing the license and mandates wielded are valid. Both

25
institutions risk accountability to the significant others and the
public, in exchange for authority over patient or public. In this way,
the external environment of the institution is linked to the internal
processes; the institution must act in such a way to maintain the
public perceptions. The public, in turn, grants the institution the
legitimacy and authority to cope with troubles.
Purpose

A purpose, as defined by Burke, is necessary for an act to
"be called an act in the fullest sense of the of the term," otherwise it
would be merely an "accident" (Burke 1952, p135). An act must be
deliberate and conscious; the purpose is the motive for acting. Both
the public and private institutions considered here act
to deal with troubles - both defining and attempting to so
solve them. In doing so, the institutions instigate redefinitions of
everyday reality, on a personal level or in the public context.

Redefinition involves defining behavior which is
problematic and implementing solutions, a result of the 'moral
division of labor' discussed by Hughes (1959, p80). In the private
sphere, addressing the problem involves assessment between the

patient, his or her psychiatrist, and those closest to the patient:

The (patient's) self is described as a function of the way
in which three roles (the patient, significants and total
institution personnel) are related, arising and declining in
the kinds of affiliation that occur between the next-of-
relation and the mediators. . . . The withdrawal of (the
protection of self) can form a systematic, if unintended,
aspect of the working of an establishment (Goffman 1961,
p169)

The process of mortification Goffman describes is the way

26
in which the individual is convinced to reject his or her sense of self
and accepts the institution's label of 'mental patient' (Goffman 1961,
p169). The process is biographical and therefore ambiguous; the
definition of purpose and accountability is private and specific,
relying on the perceptions of the members of the coalition.

In the public sphere, defining a phenomena as troublesome
involves the redefinition of known everyday reality to one which
encompasses problematic phenomena. The process requires dramatic
imagery, display and "spectacle" (Edelman 1988) created by
significant others and representatives of the institution, to draw
public attention to the problem; taken for granted assumptions then
become known as problematic (Edelman 1988, p13). The creation of
problems reinforces the license and mandate of the institution. In
this way, the coalition, through the 'moral division of labor' (Hughes
1959, p80) redefines the society's self-concept.

Implementing solutions entails accepting this redefinition, on
the personal level and public level. Considerable debate exists in
both spheres on the substantive content of these solutions;
consideration of this is not within the scope of the analysis.
Ultimately, the purpose of both institutions is to address troubles,
individual and collective, by redefining the everyday framework of
the individual or the collective.

Another underlying purpose of both institutions' activities is
maintaining the perception that the institution achieves its stated
purpose; This an important part of the dramaturgical functioning of
total and public institutions as well. Through 'dramatic idealization'

(Goffman 1959, p41) the institutional personnel seek to maintain this

27

perception for the public, in order to maintain their license and
mandate to act. Thus dramaturgically, the construction and perceived
fulfillment of the stated purpose of the institution is necessary to
persuade the members of the external social surround that the
institution is indeed coping with troubles.

Conclusion
The study of problems and how society manages them is a
favored pursuit of sociologists. Typical sociological analyses
addressing private troubles and public issues tend to focus on
theories of rationality, exchange, and power. In contrast, this paper
emphasizes the dramaturgical processes by which society copes with
troubles.

Dramaturgy is well-suited to the study of problem-solving
institutions. The institution must present itself as capable of coping
with troubles, having the authority and legitimacy to do so, and
doing so effectively. Thus, the institution must focus on the image it
presents to observers. The type of trouble dealt with, either public or
private, determines the Visibility with which the institution works to
cope with problems. Thus, the external environment affects the
internal processes of the institution, by requiring that the institution
maintain an image of functioning effectively. In exchange, the public
grants the institution responsibility for its individual or collective
troubles.

The dramaturgical perspective, as seen through Goffman
and Burke, also allows us to see how the process of problem solving
involves redefinition, and how redefinition happens in the personal

and public spheres. Goffman's book Asylums describes the process of

28

mortification the patient undergoes in order to embrace a "rebirth"
(Goffman 1961, p169). My own observations of the state senate
reveal the way in which public institutions work to redefine the
social lives of the public.

Through Kenneth Burke's dramatistic pentad, one can see
the congruity between the abstract types - the total institution and
the public institution. Burke's framework lists constant elements by
which one can explore how the internal processes of the institution in
question are affected by the external environment, and how these
institutions in turn affect the surrounding environment, of the
individual or the collective.

We began with the scene, which distinguishes the public
institution from the total institution, determining the type of troubles
the institution deals with. The result is basic, defining
characteristics of each, which differ markedly at first glance.
The agents of both total and public institutions include
representatives to maintain impressions for the public, significant
others, who draw attention to problems, and staff, to maintain the
everyday life and the overall ideology of the institution. The patients
or public provide the institution with problems to solve. The act in
both institutions involves diagnoses, or the definition of a
phenomena as problematic, and solutions, which entail redefinition of
the everyday life of the patient or public. The agency for the actors
to take action comes, in both total and public institutions, from the
public perception of legitimacy and the institutions' claims to
authority. The purpose of both institutions is to cope with troubles,

whether private or public.

29
The dramatistic pentad serves to illustrate how two

seemingly unlike institutions in fact address problem-solving
through a similar process. The external environment is responded to
dramatically in both settings. Consideration of public perceptions
influences how the agents in a setting act, how agency is derived,
how one's purpose is presented. In turn, the institution is granted the
power to redefine everyday reality, for the individual or the

collective.

30

Table 1: The Dramatistic Pentad, as Applied to Total and

Public Institutions

Dimensions

SCCDC

agents

m
0
H

a enc

purpose

Type 1

Total Institution

private setting

representatives;
significant others;

staff; patients

problem diagnosis
(definition of
problem); solutions
(redefine self of

patient)

license and mandate
in exchange for

accountability

cope with private

troubles

* note the order has been changed

Type 2

Public Institution

public setting

representatives;
significant others -
politically active

public; staff; public

problem diagnosis
(definition of public
problem); solutions
(redefine public

policy)

license and mandate
in exchange for

accountability

cope with public

troubles

List of References

3 2
LIST OF REFERENCES

Becker, Howard and Harry Elmer Barnes. Social Thought from Lore
to Science. Washington, DC: Harren Press, 1952.

Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice4Hall,
Inc,l952.

Burke, Kenneth. Permanence and Change. Los Altos, CA: Hermes
Publications, 1954. ‘

A Citizens Guide to State Government. provided by Representative
Lynn Jondahl. Lansing, MI: Legislative Council, 1993.

Dexter, Lewis. "Suggestions for Getting, Conducting and Recording

the Interview." Elite and Specialized Interviewing. Evanston,
IL: Northwestern University Press, 1970.

Edelman, Murray. Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Emerson, Robert M. (ed). Contemporary Field Research: A Collection,
of Readings. Boston: Little, Brown and Field, 1983.

Goffman, Erving. Asylums. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1961.

Goffman, Erving. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York:
Doubleday and Co., 1959.

Hughes, Everett Cherrington. Men and Their Work. Toronto: Collier
- Macmillan, 1958.

Lee, Jessica. "Observation 1." Department of Sociology, Michigan
State University, Sept. 21, 1993.

"Observation 2." Department of Sociology, Michigan State
University, Sept 28, 1993.

"Observation 5." Department of Sociology, Michigan State
University, Oct 19, 1993.

"Observation 7." Department of Sociology, Michigan State
University, Nov 2, 1993.

33

"Observation 8;" Department of Sociology, Michigan State
University, Nov 8, 1993.

"Interview 1 (with tbur guide)." Department of Sociology,
Michigan State University, Nov 8, 1993.

"Interview 2 (with legislative aide)." Department of Sociology,
Michigan State University, Nov 18, 1993.

Matthews, Donald R. U. S. Senators & Their World. New York:
Vintage Books, 1960.

Mills, C. Wright. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1959.

Strauss, Anselm and Julia Corbin. The Basics of Qualitative Reseagch.
London: Sage Publications, 1990.

Watson, Catherine M. "The Presentation of Self and the New
Institutional Inmate: An Analysis of Prisoner's Responses
to Assessment for Release." Life as Theater Brisset, Dennis
and Edgeley, Charles (ed). New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990.

 

Woodward, Bob. The Bretheren. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1979.

Yarrow, Marian Radke, Charlotte Green Schwartz, Harriet S. Murphy
and Leila Calhoun Deasy. "The Psychological Meaning of Mental

Illness in the Family." Deviance: the Interactionist Perspective.
Rubington, Earl and Weinberg, Martin S. (ed). New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987.

Zuboff, Shoshana. In the Age pf the Smart Machine. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1988.

 

 

 

HICHI IGQ N STATE UN IV LIBRARIES

ll 1 l l

231L 310 0336703

1| 1| 1

 

l.1.u’y.¢

 

,r-J"

.u'w'

.‘A|-/1I11

1Ji7311‘

1

1“)"
mun.
'.L

~z~ljmv