Dramatism and the work of Goffman
In terms of critical policy there wasn’t a great deal until the begin of the 90s until manin and smith
Dramatism is the framework associated with Goffman and Goffman began writing in the 1950 his first book “the presentation of self in everyday life” presented in 1959 and after that he was a kind of maverick out on his own, producing a string of books containing what many at the time described as convincing journalistic accounts of how everyday live is managed by the individual. the views of Goffman weren’t simple but difficult there was the traditional view that this developed out of symbolical interactism developed from mead which is very important there are major differences also he was influences by an American journalism critic Kenif burke writing in the 1930 0r 40s after that he areas that he moved closer to fanomiolgy and * structuralism in that kind of view I emphasised last year was George Simmal what u can argue Goffman is doing is looking at common forms of behaviour in different context. More recently the main commentators including the handout I gave you by Collins, pointed to a strong connection to Durkheim arguing what Goffman is concerned with or social facts if u like the rules that produce social interaction and social order not individuals but Goffman differs from Durkheim in that he sees such order as fragile as constantly having to be built and rebuilt in everyday situations. Here the argument is that Goffman’s force is on the rituals that create and maintain order in everyday life.
The traditional views
Firstly the general theoretical framework that Goffman uses of dramatism. Secondly look at the presentation of self and look at how he himself does this. So firstly dramatism so you can argue that the term dramatism is to show the way individual act they attempt to manage to the impressions that other people see in other word interaction each individual puts on a show interaction then is innaigst to an actor interpretation of a script on a stage in front of an audience. An official on can argue that social approach highlights the two central features of meads analysis, it envasizes that action involves interpretation and action was rejective concou individuals are seen as guided performers. It also enficises the important of symbolism in interaction it enfieces that action is meaningful and is teridac in meaningful signigant context. Burg in particular enfices the symbolic stages in which action takes place and the props and the costumes that helps to maintain and create social interaction, Burg seen a court trail as a drama lawyers wearing wigs, a buraquisty is a drama he seen school classrooms as dramas were the teachers dresses up but the pupils often dress down. Arthur Britain makes an intresetion in relating the argument to social structure hes argues that social structures can only be realised through dramas symbols weathers it’s a drama of class, nationalist or enthinisty as Britain puts it the way that “men define situations is more than a reflection of thee intresets definition derive dramatically from the very nature of social life men are animals who can symbols there predicaments to themselves.” (Mead) so social life is then seen to by symbolic action on a symbolic stage. Burke attements to develop a framework for the dramatic anyalist of social lifehes examines what he calls the grammar/structure of social interaction in other words what are the major contickuants of social interaction and how do they inter relate. Burk finds five elements that have to be taken into account of in an interaction social interaction.
The act is what is done, it’s the script if you like there are typical acts drink coffee etc all of which are interruptive all of which are symbolic displays communicating to the audience what’s going on what’s happening. Secondly sense is...