Week 3 - Goffman and the Study of the Everyday

What kind of information does Goffman think individuals 'give off' when they interact with each other?

Two exchanges of information characterize each person: the expression that he gives and the expression that he gives off. Giving off encourages symptomatic readings. They are non-verbal theatrical but unintentional. Individuals appearing before others always give off a form of analysis/definition of the establishment they are in. Ethnomethodology calls this a formulation.

Provide examples of what he means by the 'front' setting in which role-performances take place?

Front and setting are defined individually. The front is like the front of a stage, where the individual appears in the open, displayed to the audience, the observers. The front is the expressive equipment of the performance.

The Setting is defined as an environment that is established and provides the surroundings for the performance to be given by the individual.

Why does Goffman's interest in everyday activities make the playwright Alan Bennet wake up in a 'cold sweat'?

I think it is specifically the meticulous way in which Goffmen explores human behavior from a sociologists perspective. Especially his analysis of double meanings not only in words, but also in conversations seem to frighten him as a playwright. Goffman actually lectures him about human behavior. Comprehensible conversations and management of different stages as performed in the descripton of Goffman’s performer are crucial for a good play

Week 2 - Making Something Out Of Nothing

Do you agree with Gracia's claim that the success of the television sit-com Seinfeld ('the show about nothing') lies in its attention to the 'insignificant'?

About Gracia’s claim I agree that the insignificant in Seinfeld becomes significant. But to claim that this alone justifies the unusual success of Seinfeld, I cannot confirm. There are many more comedy series out there that take the same approach and are/were very successful: Two and a Half Men, King of Queens or even the classic Bewitched. In all of these series nothing of significance happens, but I think, this is what most people’s lives are like. Rather than looking at their life as an ongoing tragedy, because everything significant seems to happen in high places (Partridge Family, Dallas, Denver), shows like Seinfeld provide some identification for the average person. Characters like Seinfeld are human rather than superhuman, just like you and me.

Do you agree that comedy therefore shares something with Garfinkel's ethnomethodology?

I agree to this about comedy in the vein of Seinfeld. However, there is other comedy out there. When you look at Southpark, Simpsons or the Italian Signor Rossi, those are animated comedies that play with the tragedy of the average person, their little feats and their little David triumphs over Goliath. Those I would not relate to Garfinkels ethnomethodology, as they mix everyday life experience with outright ridiculous events that are not possible in real life. Still, I know humans who relate to these cartoon characters and see parts of themselves featured.