关闭

关闭

关闭

封号提示

内容

首页 【Routledge 重要社会学家】Goffman.pdf

【Routledge 重要社会学家】Goffman.pdf

【Routledge 重要社会学家】Goffman.pdf

上传者: calvino_lue 2012-07-05 评分 0 0 0 0 0 0 暂无简介 简介 举报

简介:本文档为《【Routledge 重要社会学家】Goffmanpdf》,可适用于人文社科领域,主题内容包含ERVINGGOFFMANDecadesafterhisdeath,thefigureofErvingGoffman(–)continuestofas符等。

ERVINGGOFFMANDecadesafterhisdeath,thefigureofErvingGoffman(–)continuestofascinatePerhapsthebestknownsociologistofthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury,GoffmanwasanunquestionablysignificantthinkerwhosereputationextendedwellbeyondhisparentdisciplineAhostofconceptsirrevocablylinkedtoGoffman’sname–suchas‘presentationofself’,‘totalinstitutions’,‘stigma’,‘impressionmanagement’and‘passing’–arenowstaplesofawiderangeofacademicdiscoursesandareslippingintocommonusageGoffman’swritingsuncoverapreviouslyunnoticedpatternintheminutiaeofeverydayinteractionReadersareoftenshockedwhentheyrecognizethemselvesinhisshrewdanalysesoferrorsandcommonpredicamentsGregSmith’sbooktracestheemergenceofGoffmanasasociologicalvirtuoso,andoffersacompactguidebothtohissociologyandtothecriticismsanddebatesithasstimulatedGregSmithteachesattheUniversityofSalford,specializinginethnographicandinteractionistsociology,andsociologicalandculturaltheoryHehaspublishedwidelyonthesociologyofErvingGoffmanKEYSOCIOLOGISTSEditedbyPETERHAMILTONNowreissued,thisclassicseriesprovidesstudentswithconciseandreadableintroductionstothework,lifeandinfluenceofthegreatsociologicalthinkersWithindividualvolumescoveringindividualthinkers,fromEmileDurkheimtoPierreBourdieu,eachauthortakesadistinctline,assessingtheimpactofthesemajorfiguresonthedisciplineaswellasthecontemporaryrelevanceoftheirworkThesepocketsizedintroductionswillbeidealforbothundergraduatesandpreuniversitystudentsalike,aswellasforanyonewithaninterestinthethinkerswhohaveshapedourtimeSeriestitlesinclude:EMILEDURKHEIMKenThompsonTHEFRANKFURTSCHOOLANDITSCRITICSTomBottomoreGEORGSIMMELDavidFrisbyMARXANDMARXISMPeterWorsleyMAXWEBERFrankParkinMICHELFOUCAULTBarrySmartPIERREBOURDIEURichardJenkinsSIGMUNDFREUDRobertBocockZYGMUNTBAUMANTonyBlackshawAUGUSTECOMTEMikeGaneERVINGGOFFMANGregSmithERVINGGOFFMANGREGSMITHFirstpublishedbyRoutledgeParkSquare,MiltonPark,Abingdon,OxonOXRNSimultaneouslypublishedintheUSAandCanadabyRoutledgeMadisonAve,NewYork,NYRoutledgeisanimprintoftheTaylorFrancisGroup,aninformabusinessGregSmithAllrightsreservedNopartofthisbookmaybereprintedorreproducedorutilizedinanyformorbyanyelectronic,mechanical,orothermeans,nowknownorhereafterinvented,includingphotocopyingandrecording,orinanyinformationstorageorretrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublishersBritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataAcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibraryLibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationDataAcatalogrecordforthisbookhasbeenrequestedISBN:–––(hbk)ISBN:–––(pbk)ISBN:–––(ebk)ISBN:––––(hbk)ISBN:––––(pbk)ISBN:––––(ebk)ThiseditionpublishedintheTaylorFranciseLibrary,“TopurchaseyourowncopyofthisoranyofTaylorFrancisorRoutledge’scollectionofthousandsofeBookspleasegotowwweBookstoretandfcouk”TableofContentsAcknowledgementsviiChapterGoffman’sProjectChapterOriginsandEmergenceChapterInteraction’sOrderlinessChapterFramingExperienceChapterAsylumsChapterSpoiledIdentityandGenderDifferenceChapterSelfviContentsChapterMethodsandTextualityChapterAfterGoffmanFurtherReadingReferencesIndexAcknowledgementsMythinkingabouttheideasdiscussedinthisbookhasbenefitedfromdiscussionswithElaineBaldwin,MikeBall,GaryAlanFine,CarolBrooksGardner,BillGronfein,DavidJary,BrianLonghurst,PhilManning,RobPhilburn,TomScheff,WesSharrock,AndrewTravers,FranWaksler,RodWatson,DougWebster,RobinWilliamsandYvesWinkinAversionofChapterwaspresentedattheCouchStoneSymposiumoftheSocietyfortheStudyofSymbolicInteraction,UniversityofLasVegas,inFebruaryKathyCharmazmadeparticularlyhelpfulcommentsonthatoccasionMythanksalsotoMaryByrne,whoassistedwiththepreparationofthemanuscriptOnceagain,IamgratefultoShaunaSmithforbearingthevagariesofmyacademicwayswithmoretolerancethanIhadanyrighttoexpectGoffman’sProjectASOCIOLOGICALENIGMAErvingGoffmanwasoneofthetwentiethcentury’smostremarkablepractitionersofsocialscience,asociologistuniversallyacknowledgedforhissingulartalentLongafterhisdeathin,simplementionoftheword‘Goffman’isenoughtosignifynotjustasubjectmatterbutalsoahighlydistinctiveattitudeandanalyticstancetowardthesocialworldHefirstcametoprominencewiththepublicationofThePresentationofSelfinEverydayLife,whichhefollowedtwoyearslaterwiththeevenmoreinfluentialAsylumsUnusually,forasociologist,GoffmanenjoyedfameoutsidehishomedisciplineThatfamewascuriousbecauseGoffmanwasnotinterested,asmanyleadingsociologistsare,inthebigquestionsaboutthenatureanddevelopmentofmodernsocietyHisinterestwasinthestructureoffacetofaceinteraction,intheminutiaeofordinarytalkandactivityHissociologywasnottheoreticallyambitiousItmodestlyespouseddescription,classificationandconceptualarticulation,andshowednoaspirationtowardspropositionalexpressionasfullyfledgedexplanatoryandpredictivetheoryNordidGoffmandevelopaschoolofthoughtoranewmethodologicalapproachforthestudyofsociallifeRather,hisinterestswereconfinedtoquitenarrowconcernswithwhathecalledthe‘interactionorder’anditsimplicationsfortheselfGoffman’ssinglemindedpursuitoftheanalysisofinteractionandwhatthatErvingGoffmananalysissuggestedabouttheselvesofparticipantsininteraction(‘interactants’),publishedinbooksandnumerousarticlesfromthemidstotheearlys,wonhimmanyadmirers(andnotafewcritics)acrossacademicsociologyandbeyondThewritingsofErvingGoffmanhavealwaysattractedextremesofassessmentWhilemanyreadershavebeenintriguedanddelightedbytheacuityofhisobservationsandbyhismatchlessanalysesofordinarysociallife,othershavedespairedoverGoffman’swork,findingitaspeciousevasionoftheserioustheoretical,technicalandmoralissuesthathaveanimatedsociologysinceitsinceptionOverlayingtheseresponsesisawidespreadpuzzlementaboutthebroadcharacterofGoffman’sproject,whichinsubstance,approachanddetaildidnotobviouslyresembleanyofthemajorformsofsociologicalworkpractisedinthemiddleofthetwentiethcenturyNotwithstandingthepopularityandattractivenessofGoffman’ssociologicalwritings,therearemanyreadersandcommentatorswhoexpressdegreesofbafflementabouthisoverallenterpriseForthesereadershissociologyconstitutesan‘enigma’(arecurrentterminthecriticalliterature)Theyunderstandwhattheyhavereadadequatelyenough–afterallhisworkenjoyswidepopularappealbecauseitisaccessibleandcapableofengagingthenonspecialistButreadersoftenhavedifficultyingraspingtheimmediateorlargerpointofitallorinlocatingtheworkwithinthewiderperspectivesanddebatesofsociologyandthehumansciencesGoffman’srapidriseintheearlyscoincidedwithaperiodofgreatchangeinAmericansociologyThecertaintiesprovidedbystructuralfunctionalismandempiricaltheorywereincreasinglychallengedbytherenaissanceofMarxistsociologyandtheriseofnovelinterpretivesociologicalperspectivessuchasphenomenology,symbolicinteractionism,andethnomethodologyTheinterpretiveperspectiveswereoftenbuttressedbynewthinkinginordinarylanguagephilosophyandthephilosophyofscienceGoffman’ssociologyplayedanimportantpartinthesechanges,moreasanexemplarofalternativeconceptionsofsociologicalpracticethanitselfasourceoftheoreticalcritiqueNotonlydidGoffmanseemtoofferagoodcaseinpointofanonpositivisticsociology,itwasseenalsoasasymptomoftheactualorimpendingcrisisofthedisciplineinthes(Gouldner)Ofcourse,Goffman’ssuccessowedatleastasmuchtohisshrewdobservationaltalentandhiswitandgraceasawriterasitdidtheconcretefindingsthetextsdeliveredHiswritingsuccessfullymarriedthenovelist’seyeforthedetailandparticularityofhumanconductwiththesystematizingdriveofthesocialscientistHereitseemedwasasociologistwiththeliterarysensibilityandobservationalskillstouncoverGoffman’sProjecttheironiesanddiscrepanciestowhichinteractionalconductseemedsusceptible,whereveritoccurredThedistinctivecastofGoffman’sthinkingaboutsociallifewasevidentinhissubtleandskilfuluseofarangeofmetaphors(dramaturgical,ritual,gametheoretical,ethological)andhisflairforsardonicwitticismandironicobservationItwasalsoexpressedinthehighlyindividuallookofmanyofthepagesofhisbooksGoffmanwasnotafraidtoillustratehisideaswithquotationsfromnovels,firstpersonaccountsandnewspaperreportsYethewasnomerepopularizerGoffmanwasimmenselywellreadmanypagesofhisbooksareheavywithsubstantialfootnotesthatreferencespecializedacademicsourcestosupportorqualifyhisanalysesThemannerinwhichGoffmanundertooktheprojectofthesociologyoftheinteractionorderwaseverybitasstrikingasitssubstanceGoffman’ssociologicalstyle,aswellasthesubstantiveclaimshissociologyadvanced,helpedtomakehimanenduringlycontroversialfigureGoffman’ssociologyprovokednumerousinterpretations,testimonytotheambiguouslegacyhisworkrepresentsThecriticalliteraturesuggestsahostofdichotomiesinforminghiswritingsAretheybestseenasstructuralistorsymbolicinteractionist,formalistorphenomenological,modernistorpostmodernist,Machiavellianorexistentialist,realistorempiricistWhileGoffman’sideascannotbereducedtoanyoneofthesecategories,theynonethelesscapturesomeofthetensionsandambiguitiesofhissociologicalthinkingAcquaintancesofGoffmantellofhowheenjoyedtestingthelimitsoftherulesandunderstandingsshapingfacetofaceconductinrestaurants,cinemaqueues,lecturetheatresandlivingroomsYetsuchsociologicallyinspiredmischievousnesswasmatchedbyacontraryimpulse,analmostDurkheimianregardforthepowerofritualandroutinetoshapeourthought,feelingsandconductGoffmanwas,asBennettBerger(:xvii)onceputit,part‘Nietzscheanmoraladventurer’,part‘prudentVictorian’SomeofthesetensionsandambiguitieswerereflectedinGoffman’sownreputationandcareerHewasthemaverickoutsiderwhoeventuallybecamePresidentoftheAmericanSociologicalAssociationAddtothisthemysteryGoffmancreatedaroundhispersonabyrefusingmanyofthetrappingsofthecelebrityintellectualHeveryreluctantlyandinfrequentlyconsentedtointerviewHeneverappearedonradioortelevision,andhediscouragedattemptstorecordhisvoiceorphotographhisimageDellHymes(),alongstandingcolleagueofGoffman’s,wroteof‘Erving’sgift’,oftheuniquesociologicaltalenthepossessedandthedifficultiesthatGoffmanhadincomingtotermswithitAsthecorpusofGoffman’swritingsgrewinthesands,itbecameincreasinglyapparentErvingGoffmanthatanunusualcontributiontounderstandingthehumanconditionwasinprogressINTERPRETIVEPROBLEMSINREADINGGOFFMANGoffman’smajorachievementwastodemonstratehowtheparticularsoftheconductof‘copresent’persons,thatispersonswhoarephysicallypresenttooneanother,areamenabletosociologicalanalysisHesawhisworkasapreliminaryforayintoasociologicallyunchartedterritorythatmightleadtofurther,moresystematicandpreciseinvestigationsofinteractionForGoffman,thefirstandperhapsonlyproperconcernfortheprofessionalsociologist(or‘studentofsociety’,hisfavouredphrase)wastheinvestigationofsociety(seeVerhoeven)Withsuchanambition,ithastobesaidthatabooklikethis–astudyofasociologistratherthansocialreality–wouldprobablyhaveappalledGoffmanForGoffmanthestudyoftheideasofsociologistsmadeanempiricaldisciplineintoaliteraryoneand,worse,waslikelytopromotetheuncriticalcanonizationoftheeminentratherthanthecriticalapplicationanddevelopmentoftheirideasToconstrueanindividualsociologist’slifeandwritingsasanobjectofacademicattentionwas,Goffmanonceclaimed(David),‘alowformofheroworship’ThisexplainsinpartwhyGoffmanwasareluctantinterviewee(thereareonlythreeinterviewsofsubstanceinthepublicdomain:DavidWinkinVerhoeven)Hehopedthathispublicationswouldspeakandbejudgedforthemselves,sincetheycontainedthecleareststatementsofhisideas,whichsubsequentconversationwouldbeunlikelytoilluminatefurther(Nevertheless,statementsmadebyGoffmanaboutGoffmanusefullyilluminatethenatureofhisexceptionalsociologicalproject)Goffman’sdiffidenceaboutopenengagementinprintwithhiscriticscanbeunderstoodinsimilartermsTherealworkforsociologists,hefelt,layelsewhere,intheinvestigationofthefeaturesofthesocialworldAshetestilyobservedinthepaperthatwashissoledirectreplytocritics,‘pronouncingandcounterpronouncingarenotthestudyofsociety’(b:)HeoncetoldStanfordLyman(personalcommunication)‘sociologyissomethingthatyoudo,notsomethingthatyouread’VariousconstructionsmightbeplacedupontheseremarksThescepticalmightregardthemasathinlyveiledattempttoenhancethestatusofanalreadyenigmaticsociology,adeflectingtacticdesignedtodiscourageclosereflectionuponthenatureandadequacyofacontentioussociologicalprojectConfrontedwiththepuzzleofhowtomakesenseofGoffman,thepuzzle’soriginatortellsusourtroublesarenotworthpursuing(oratleast,notworthpursuingintoprint)GoffmanmaywellberighttocautionGoffman’sProjectsociologistsabouttheveryrealriskofgoaldisplacementinherentincriticalreflectionuponanypieceofsociologicalwork,buttheadmonitionshouldnotbetakentooliterallyForifGoffman’sworkistobeunderstoodandappliedbyothersinanythingmorethanapiecemealfashion,ifitistobefullycapitalizeduponanddeveloped,thencriticalappreciationisanimportantpreliminary–anendeavournotnecessarilyatoddswiththeempiricalinvestigationsthatGoffmanwantstoencourageOtherfeaturesofGoffman’swritingsservetomakecriticalcommentaryanexactingtaskHewaslesswillingthanmostofhisreaderstoregardhisintellectualproductasa‘unitarything’andexplicitlycalledintoquestiontheneat,uniformcharacterizationofhiswritingsas‘Goffman’ssociology’Goffmanagreedthattheremustbesomecontinuityrunningthroughhiswritings,sinceoneauthorcanproduceonlysomanyideas,buthealsosuggestedthatspeakingofhissociologyinthesingularisaconvenientglossthatdisguisesrealinconsistenciesacrosshiswritings(David)Itiscertainlytruethatothersspokemorereadilyandmoreconfidentlyof‘Goffman’ssociology’thandiditsauthorVeryearlyoninGoffman’scareeritbecameevidentthathiswritingsdisplayedadistinctivesociologicalattitudeandthattherewasenoughconsistencyinhisanalyticalprocedurestowarranttheuseofthe‘Goffman’ssociology’andtheadjectives‘Goffmanian’and‘Goffmanesque’(thelatterfirstusedinprintin)Yetforanauthorwhoseworkwasinformedbyaclearvisionofsociallifeandguidedbyasuresenseofitspotential,hisoeuvrelacksselfevidentinternalcoherenceEachofhisbooksiswritten,asWesSharrock()noted,asifnoneoftheothershadbeenEachstartsfromconceptualscratchand,evenwherethereareapparentlysubstantialoverlaps,containslittlecrossreferencingtoideascontainedinearlierwork(adeficiencythatGoffmandidbegintoremedyinhislaterwritings)IndexesareabsentorlessthanadequateGoffman’sfacilityforinventingnewtermsandrenderingthoseofotherwritersgristtohisanalyticalmillseemstoeffacehisownearlierusages,subvertinganybidtoformasystembuiltaroundaconceptualcoreAndtomakemattersmoredifficult,GoffmanprovidesthemostminimalguidancetoreadersabouthowhisworkmightbesituatedinrelationtoestablishedsociologicaltraditionsandissuesUnderstandablyenough,thishasbeenseenasacuriouswayinwhichtodevelopanewareaofsociology,particularlyonethatwaspreeminentlyconcernedwithconceptualarticulationErvingGoffmanTHEORDERLINESSOFFACETOFACEINTERACTIONThedevelopmentofanewfieldofsociologyremainedGoffman’sparamountproject,famouslystatingthat‘myultimateinterestistodevelopthestudyoffacetofaceinteractionasanaturallybounded,analyticallycoherentfield–asubareaofsociology’(a:ix)Inwhatheknewwouldbehislastwordonthematter,‘Theinteractionorder’(a)(theposthumouslypublishedPresidentialAddresstotheAmericanSociologicalAssociation),Goffmannotedthatfacetofaceinteractionisadomainofsociallifecharacterizedby‘copresence’Wheneverwearepresentbeforeothers–orareintheir‘responsepresence’–weconveytothemsomethingofourselvesthroughthecontentofourtalk(‘expressionsgiven’)andthroughthemannerofourtalk,throughourposture,glances,ourapparentdisposition,andsoforth(‘expressionsgivenoff’or‘exuded’)AsGoffman(a:)pointsout,everysaneadultis‘wonderfullyaccomplished’atproducingtheseexpressionsandatappreciatingtheirsignificanceInthepresenceofothersthereisnotimeout,noescapefromtheimplicationsoftheperson’sexpressivity:evencompletesilenceandimmobilityconveyssomethingtoothersaboutthepersonThusthesubstantivefocusofGoffman’ssociologyisthe‘comingling’thatoccursin‘socialsituations’,definedspecificallyasthoseenvironmentswhere‘twoormorepersonsareinoneanother’sresponsepresence’(a:)Goffmanconsidersthefieldoffacetofaceinteractiontobe‘naturallybounded’(a:ix)bycharacteristicsthatseemtoapplyinallplacesandatalltimesInteractionhasa‘promissory,evidentialcharacter’thatfacilitatesourordinarycapacitytomakeinferencesfromtheexpressionsgivenandgivenoffbyothersButthereareother,nolessimportantgeneralfeaturesFacetofaceactivities–anafterdinnerspeech,acourtesyextendedtoanother–arecircumscribedintimeandspace,henceoneofGoffman’sfavouredtermsforthem:‘smallbehaviors’Muchinteractionalactivityhaslittleornolatentphase,sothattopostponeanactivity(egrespondingtoaquestion)canbehighlyconsequentialforthesubsequentcourseoftheinteractionThereisadistinct‘psychobiolo

用户评论(0)

0/200

精彩专题

上传我的资料

每篇奖励 +2积分

资料评价:

/31
仅支持在线阅读

意见
反馈

立即扫码关注

爱问共享资料微信公众号

返回
顶部