A Study in Goffmans Spirit

8/8/2019 A Study in Goffmans Spirit

1/31

http://www.jstor.org

Political Culture and the Presentation of a Political Self: A Study of the Public Sphere in the

Spirit of Erving Goffman

Author(s): Nina Eliasoph

Source: Theory and Society, Vol. 19, No. 4, (Aug., 1990), pp. 465-494

Published by: Springer

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/657799

Accessed: 12/05/2008 08:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org/stable/657799?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/657799?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/31

Political culture and the presentation of a political selfA studyof thepublic sphere in the spiritofErving GoffmanNINA ELIASOPHDepartment of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley

News is not my favorite show. Oliver North is not my favorite star. Idon't know anything about the Iran-contra thing. You can't avoidhearing about it - the only reason I know anything at all is because Iread the National Enquirer once. But I don't know anything about it.

In a survey, this grinning man's proud response to the question, "Whatdo you think of the Iran-Contra affair?" would register as "don'tknow."He was apparently not unusual in his lack of knowledge; at the heightof the scandal, in August 1987 when this question was asked, the issuehad been front-page news for months, but 24 percent of those polledsaid they did not know which side the U.S. government was supportingin Nicaragua, and 20 percent said the United States was supporting theNicaraguan government.' Nor was the Iran-Contra affair an unusuallyignored issue: many Americans do not know basic facts about manyimportant political issues.2 What does such ignorance mean?The substance of political life is public discussion; even if a person canexperience feelings of political concern without having a language forgiving those feelings socially recognizable meaning, the feelings do notmatter if they remain only private. Studying how people actually talkabout politics may provide one key to understanding why so manyAmericans polled express little faith in government,3 while so few try tochange it.As sociolinguists insist, people "do things with words"4 beyond thewords' lexical definitions. One sociological truism is that speech onlymakes sense in a social context. Another is that the content of speech isinseparable from its form.5 But these two simple ideas' implications forresearch on public life have rarelybeen explored. In the spirit of ErvingGoffman, I tried an experiment based on these two ideas. This is a stu-Theoryand Society 19:46 5-494, 1990.? 1990 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.


3/31

466dy of how people think they are supposed to sound talking about politi-cal things in public.The first idea is about the relations people are willing to display towardtheir own political opinions. Like Harold Garfinkel's work,6 this studyexamines not just the"what,"not just the content, of political opinions,but also the "how,"focussing not just on the answers people wouldleave on a multiple-choice questionnaire, but also on the relationshipspeople display towards those answers, on the things they "say"withtheir forms of speech.The second idea is that the immediate context gives meaning to thewords. To impose a heavily public "frame,"as Goffman calls it, on theinterviews, I used an odd method: people-on-the-street interviews.Armed with a big microphone, I told people, truthfully,that I would beusing the interviews for a radio documentary.7 In most public-opinionresearch, interviewers take the context for granted, so they can onlyguess what it was about the interview and interviewer that inspiredcertain responses. By telling people the interviews were for a radiodocumentary, I hoped to make it clear just what it was about the inter-view and the interviewer to which respondents were responding. Thiswas an effort to explore a folk definition of "public."What is "public?"What is the purpose of speaking in "public?"What is an appropriateway to speak for the public record?The people I interviewed displayed their relations to their opinions,using socially established codes to distinguish between statements that,on a questionnaire, would look identical. The display is a central aspectof their political opinion. It is a public dimension of their opinion, theaspect of their opinion that is reproduced in interaction and to whichother people can respond.I found it useful to divide the interviews into three broad categories.Some people, like the man whose favorite show is not the news, tried tosound witty and irreverent, as if they themselves, and not larger politi-cal issues, were the real referents of the discussion. Such people usedtheir words as a wedge between themselves and the world of politics.They were more interested in showing distance between themselvesand politics; in saving face as individuals; in absolving themselves ofresponsibility for what they saw as the absurdity and corruption ofpolitical life. They used various methods to exempt themselves fromseriously discussing politics: some strongly and proudly asserted their


4/31

467feelingsof powerlessness,and eagerlyexaggerated he depthsof theirignorance,as if to make a virtue of them. Others spoke in violent,hyperbolictones, joking, imitatingcartoon characters' peech, alwaysleavingopen the possibilitythat they were not serious. I label those"Irreverent"peakers.A secondtypeof speakercould notcapitalizeonignorance n the samewaythe "irreverent"eople could. These peoplecould only say thatthey were unqualified o offeropinions;some ten-tativelyoffered clich6sas earnestefforts at public speech.Those, I call"Intimidated"peakers.A third type of speaker was "Concerned,"more eager to send a message than to sound clever or save face.Thoughthe opinionsthisthirdtypeexpressedwerenot always nfavorof popularcontrol of the government some favoreda high degreeofgovernment ecrecy, or example- theirmethodof speaking mpliedabeliefthatwhatthey,as citizens,saidmattered.Interviewingarbitrarilyselected strangersis certainlynot standardsociology. At this early stage in this type of research,an arbitrarymethod is useful, though,because it is not clear even what type ofsamplingwould yield a varietyof speaking styles.Simplyfindingouthow repetitive hese stylesare seems to be a discovery n itself.Usingthe presence of the media - in this case, the radio journalist - as astand-in or thepublicsphere s not a problem-freedea either.But the interestingdifficultiesI encountered n framingand interpret-ingthe interviewsraiseimportantquestions or moreacceptable ormsof public-opinionresearch as well. The typology of public stances Ioutline belowis an effort to sort throughsome theoreticaland metho-dologicalproblems.It is a meanstowardclarifying ome questionsandraisingothers,andnotanend in itself.So, first I discuss herewhat is wrongwith the conventionalapproaches,then describethe basis of an alternativeapproach,and then,after de-scribingthe results of an investigationusing this approach,go on toclarifywhatquestions hisalternative aises.How wouldsocial scientiststypically reat the man cited above,whosefavoritestar is not Oliver North? Surveysand intimateopen-endedinterviews, he two methodsusuallybrought o bear on politicalques-tions,both presentproblemsfor investigationsnto publicself-presen-tation,usually gnoringbothquestionsoutlinedabove,both thecontextof politicalexpressionand the"how."


5/31

468Standard political research and the missing contextAn assumption uelingpoliticalsurveyresearch s that the most demo-craticwayto understandpublic opinionis to find out what each indi-vidual thinksin privateand add all the privateopinions together.AsPierreBourdieu8and Robert Bellah et al.9quip,such researchwouldmoreaccuratelybe calledprivate-opinion esearch.Public-opinionresearchactivelytriesto bypass public displays.Ignor-ing them will not make them irrelevent. f ironyis the form that thechucklingman'spolitical speechtakesin public, t is a basic elementofhis politicalposition.The tone is a shorthand,stylizedway of desig-natingthe issue'smeaningandhis relation o it. A centralquestionforpublic-opinionresearch hen,shouldbe, "Whatpolitical positionscanpeopletake n public?"Depth interviewsalso tend to eliminate he notion of "public."Usuallytheseopen-ended nterviewsaimatunearthinghe "realbeliefs"hiddenbeneaththe distractionof public posturing. n the fascinatingclassic,Political Ideology: Why the Common Man Believes What He Does,"'Robert Lane interviewed fifteen men individually,n a context thatLane said was modelled aftera psychotherapeuticession:

... I had the good fortuneto take a course on the strategyand tacticsofpsychotherapywith John Dollard. Under his guidance,and after studyingand observingpsychotherapeuticmethods, I was assigned a patient forwhom I served as therapist.... [This experience] aunched me upon thisstudyof thepoliticalmindand thatshaped he character f myconversationswiththese fifteenmen."

He wasvery eagernot to interview he menin theirown homes,wherethere mightbe distractionsor eavesdropperswhose presence mightpreventthe men from sayingwhatthey reallythought.His interviewswere "in quiet professional surroundings,over coffee and if theywanted,cigars,relaxed and comfortable.... The tape recorder,con-cealed, and used by permissionof the men, seemed to impose noobstacleto confidence."12Still,the men engaged n a relationshipwith him.Althoughhe tried toerase the effect of their statusdifferencewiththe comfortand coffee,someof themendeferentially alledhim"professor."Minister,confessor, inquisitor, potential employer, judge, therapist,


6/31

469reporter:t does not take a Foucaultto see that they all requirea dif-ferent kind of "subject" o interview.I tried to draw out commonassumptionsof what a public subjectwould sound like, not in "quietprofessional urroundings,"utin busyandnoisyones, full of interrup-tions,usuallywithgroupsof co-workers,amilies,orfriends.This maynot be the best wayto evoke a publicposture.Some peoplemay assume "on-the-street"nterviews are particularly hallow,flip,and witty,and have made a specialeffort to conform to thatimage.'3Butit is equallyplausible o assumethat a persongivenan opportunityto speakout abouta seriousandimportantpolitical ssue wouldtrytouse the interviewas a means of advocatinga politicalposition.The waymostpoliticaltheoristshavedefinedpubliclife, manyAmeri-can do not have one.'4 Public life, in theory,includes, among otherthings,discussion between equals,15 r at least possibilitiesfor chal-lenging and redefining power relations.'6The discussion should beexplicitlyaimed at the commongood.'7It is notjustfamilyandit is notjustwork.However,Paolo ManciniandDaniel Hallinargue, he U.S. media havetheimpossible ask of supplying hemissingdialogueandchallengesanactivecitizenry s supposedto provide.'8Manypeople watch or readthenews to reassure hemselves hatthepublic sphereremains ar fromtheir own lives.19 o, if manypeople assumethatpubliclife happens nthe media,theninterviewinghem for the news,as I did, is a good wayto evoke publicvoices. It is certainlya good way to understandwhatpeople think the news is for.It also raisesmanyotherinterestingques-tions aboutpoliticaldisplays.

Standard political research and flat performanceGrinning merrily, the man whose favorite show is not the news pre-sumeda commonculturalunderstandingwith theinterviewer, nowingthatIunderstoodwhathe wasimplying.Clifford Geertz illustrates a concept of culture with a story:one school-boy winked,another'seyelid twitched,a thirdparodiedthe firstboy'swink,or madea failedattemptat parodying he firstboy'swink,afterpracticinghe parody n front of a mirror.All fivewinkslook likerapidcontractionsof an eyelid,but thereare sociallyestablishedcodes for


7/31

470distinguishing between them; "a stratified hierarchy of meaningfulstructures in terms of which twitches, winks, fake-winks, parodies,rehearsals of parodies are produced, perceived, and interpreted, andwithout which they would not ... in fact, exist...."20A survey researcher would not be able to record the chuckling photog-rapher'sironic self-presentation, but would simply repeat the question,"What do you think about the Iran-Contra affair?"three times, or untilthe respondent attained the requisite degree of seriousness in his re-sponse. Most survey-research manuals note in passing that it is difficultto ignore respondents' rebelliousness, cynicism, outrage, intimidation,equivocation, lies, shyness, hints, metaphors, bragging, hostility, sexualadvances, and the other modes of conversation that "commonsense"assumes. Without appearing rude, maintaining a "serious but friendly"tone, a surveyor is to pretend not to have access to commonsensemethods of deciphering the conversation, but to wait for the explicitresponse before filling in the dot.2'But the man whose favorite show is not the news never squarelyaddresses the issues a poll would have forced on him; he makes it clearthat he does not consider those issues to be very important and that itwould be a show of gullibility to admit to believing the spectacle. Hetreats the question as if it was about himself and his own wit, while thequestion was intended to refer to the principles of democracy, law, andgovernment secrecy that most social scientists, journalists, and activiststreated as the "real" issues in the affair. The larger political issue theman did address, implicitly, was about the spectacular nature of U.S.politics.If everyone does not use identical methods, cultural "tools,"22or "vo-cabularies of motives"23for deciphering the questions, social scientistsdo not usually open up different groups' tool kits. Instead, they forcerespondents to speak seriously, forcing respondents to use a tool therespondents do not usually use, do not know how to use, or object tousing. Theorists often have assumed that cultural choices are simplydriven by ultimate values, which they assume are held seriously. But, asAnn Swidler says, the "tools"may help shape values, and not just be aresult of them. C. Wright Mills outlines a method for studying theforms of expression themselves, saying, "There is no way to plumbbehind verbalization into an individual.... The only source for a ter-minology of motives is the vocabularies of motives actually and usuallyused by actors in specific situations.24


8/31

471The man who read about Oliver North only once, and in the NationalEnquirer at that, presents a parody of an opinion, giving a sharp twistto his political "wink" that went far beyond a bland "I don't know."Because relations, styles, and displays are difficult to quantify, surveyanalysts typically have to read motives back in, to reconstruct the pri-vate mental process the respondent "musthave"undergone to reach ananswer. It is like making enriched bread: taking the nutrients out andthen putting a few others, not the original ones, back in.Even by surveyors' own standards, survey research has problems withlanguage, context, and relationships: question wording25 and order26and tone matter much more than they would if everyone were doing thesame things with words. What look to the surveyor like two identicalquestions are often taken very differently by respondents.27 People givedifferent answers to abstract questions than they do to concrete ques-tions that seem to illustrate those abstractions.28Many respondents feelcompelled to agree with whatever the interviewer says, even if it contra-dicts something else with which the interviewee has also agreed.29Atleast five studies showed that many people are quite willing to expressopinions on fictitious events, people, and policies like the "Wallonians"and the "Metallic Metals Act,"3) and a huge portion answer poll ques-tions after admitting that they know very little about the issue.31Polls are not useless. They can find out what information people haveabout a topic - how to avoid contracting AIDS, who is the president, forexample - or how people will vote in the electoral polls. These areimportant uses. Aside from that, polls can find out what people can sayin a poll, which is in itself interesting, but should not be assumed to bethe kind of "opinion"that can be mobilized.In fact, there may be systematic relations between what people can sayin poll and what they can say in other contexts, but this has not beenexplored. If public-opinion research is aimed at registering changes inopinions, no doubt part of what changes is precisely that relation:between what people would be willing to say in a poll and what theywould be willing to say in another context. Meanwhile, partisans ofcauses shamelessly use the poll data they like, explain away what theydo not like,32 and skew their political efforts to correspond with thethings people are able to say in polls.Depth interviewers, on the other hand, usually intuitively grasp re-spondents' meanings, but rarely make the "how" a central question; or


9/31

472as Garfinkel puts it, they "use common sense knowledge of the societyin exactly the ways that members use it when they must decide whatpeople are really doing or really talking about."33The open-mindedLane, for example, observed, somewhat in passing, that some of themen preferred lighthearted political discussion, with a "jokablefellow,"and observed a number of discursive "gambits" he men used to handletheir political uncertainty.But more often, Lane managed to encouragethe men to speak in a serious and straightforwardmanner. In fact, theability to avoid less straightforward, more allusive displays is themeasure of a good interviewer.One exception to the depth interviewers' usual pattern is Arlie Hoch-schild's work on gender ideology.34Pushing away, embracing, ironicallysidling up to prevailing gender images: these energetic gestures becomepart of what "being a women" means, in her view. Hochschild trains apolitical eye to the methods of self-presentation. Some recent mediastudies also avoid the depth interviewers' common problem. These"reception studies" look at how audiences position themselves in rela-tion to mass entertainment.35Along with Hochschild, I, too, think that the "methods" are themselvespolitical, and deserve analysis in their own right. Analyzing themethods of speaking means stepping back from what Garfinkel calls"shared agreements," to analyze how members, including the inter-viewer, know what the speaker means.

A different approach to political opinionI conducted about one hundred interviews, most with groups ofpeople, about the Iran-Contra affair in the summer of 1987, and a fewothers on the falling stock market and aid to the Nicaraguan contrarebels that fall. The first question was always,

I'm doing on-the-street interviews about the Iran-Contra affair [or stockmarket, or upcoming congressional vote on aid to the contras in Nicaragual.What do you think about it?

After that, the interviews are dialogues ranging from 10 minutes to anhour. I also asked most interviewees what they did for a living. Theywere conducted at a run-down suburban mall, tourist venues in SanFrancisco such as cable car stops, a city square, and public transporta-


10/31

473tion stopsin small cities that arephysicallynearto, but sociallydistantfrom SanFrancisco.My methodof interpretationnvolvedpaying specialattentionto howthe other people presentinterpreted he speaker.Usually,we seemedto shareenough culture to know when to laugh,when to sneer andchuckle,when to step back and let the speakerpontificate,when tomakea serious argumentand ask earnestquestions.Second, I askedmyself,"Whatcould this person not say,withthis display?"or "Whatwould be a rude,sillyor out of placequestionfor me to ask,giventhe'definitionof the situation' his speakeris assuming?"Third,I askedmyself what a basic question, or phrase, would be for the variousspeakers.As I outlined above, I discerned three general types ofspeakers,whichI labeled"Irreverent,"Intimidated,"nd"Concerned."

Variouspublicpresentationsof selfIrreverent peakers:Type1:Cynicalchic36Cynical chic speakers capitalize on ignorance and powerlessness,makingthem seem intentional,even exaggeratinghem.They strenu-ously,thoughsometimeswithsubtlety,assertthattheydo not care,thatthey have not been fooled into wastingtheirtime on somethingtheycannot influence,and cannot be held responsiblefor whateverhap-pens. Perversely,by making ack of poweror knowledgeseem inten-tional, he chiccyniccangainanappearanceof control.Their key questionis, as one touristput it, "What's t gonna do forme?" This man's answer:"Nothing"' Iget more joy out of chewinggum," aid another.A chicanomoving-van oaderclaimed not to haveheard of the affair, houghit becameapparent aterthathe did knowquite a bit about it. On lunch break with three co-workers in a citysquare,he said,

Truthfully, I live in a shack in South City. I don't think my opinion would gofar.What'sgoing on in the hearing? Nothing we can do about it - why shouldwe watch it on tv? We ain't got no say so. It's hard enough for me to get up intime, play conga, and take work serious. What are you gonna do, come homefrom work and think about Oliver North? I don't even know who he is. Whois he?"

A co-worker,anothercynicalchicjokester,answered,"Ashortskinny


11/31

474bald dude,"and a third chimed in, affecting a "dumb"sounding accent,"Got a blonde secretary,dunkin' his donuts and shreddin' his papers."The first man pretended to perk up at the news of the blonde. "Oh,does he?" he asked, as if to emphasize that the mere mention of herwas more interesting than the whole gamut of political information.Proud of his lack of interest, he wanted it known that his ignorance wasnot his fault.

We hear them contradicting so much, we contradict ourselves, and that'sjustwhat they want: keep us confused and not really knowing what's happening.Otherwise, they couldn't be doing the things they're doing. Look at all thatcash! They're probably diving into their swimming pools while we're sittinghere waiting to go back to work.

Taking cues from each other, the movers make the whole issue a joke.The narrative also requires that there be no "good guys" in the show."It'syour typical type scandal," sneered one fashionable Californian.Wanting to make sure we know she has not been fooled, she relied onher cynical chic ethos to guide her: "The press, the lawyers, take ad-vantage of a situation, and take advantage of anything they can getahold of."I asked, "Why?""Money,"she replied.The common tone was irony. Irony can afford a safe distance fromeverything, not just news. It is difficult to imagine approaching somethings in any other way. A state college student's job was to stand in acity plaza handing out free samples of Gatorade. Nights, he made sureto mention, he went dancing in the trendy "South of Market" area, aplace known for plastic palm trees, gay country-western bars, andpeople wearing clothes named after decades. As for politics, he proud-ly asserted with a broad grin, "I'mlazy. Politically brain damaged, andit's my fault."There are many theories of irony, especially since the term "post-modern" has become fashionable. I think the best explanation of ironyis that it allows an audience to feel distant and exempt while at the sametime the audience keeps coming back for more, without mounting asystematic challenge.37 Irony makes the audience's relation to the showa focus of attention, a source of amusement, in itself. As literary theo-rist Northrop Frye said,


12/31

475Cultivatedpeople go to a melodrama o hiss the villain with an air of con-descension:they are makinga point of the fact that they cannot take hisvillainy eriously.We have here a typeof ironywhichexactlycorresponds othatof two other majorarts of the ironicage: advertising nd propaganda.Theseartspretend o address hemselves o a subliminal udienceof cretins,an audience that maynot exist,but which is assumed to be simple-mindedenoughto acceptat their face value the statementsmade aboutthe purityofsoapor a government'smotives.3:

Rather than quipping snidely, another method of seeming in control ofpowerlessness is to make a strong argument proving one's powerless-ness. One man said,

I am a firmbeliever n - I don't hink hat one vote makesa difference. f theywanted this guy to be president, regardlessof how everybodyvoted, hewouldbe. Peoplemighthave a say in whethera stop sign goes on Fifth andGreen,butI reallydon'tthink heyhavea sayinhigherpolitical hings.39A key aspect of the cynical chic stance is that, while it gives the appear-ance and feeling of control, and in part may be an accurate assessmentof powerlessness and ignorance, it leaves the government free to actwithout any popular restraintwhatsoever; people can have the appear-ance of control without risking actually trying to take control. As manysaid in a number of ways:"They'regonna do whatever they're gonna doanyway,and you're only getting part of the facts, so what the hell." It is avery empirical approach, perhaps accurately observing the govern-ment's relation to citizens. Chic cynics never say "Ihave a dream."

Irreverent ypeII:Macho exaggeratorThis strategy involves shocking, saying the most outrageous and violentthing possible. Caricatures said half tongue-in-cheek allow the speakerto bypass the question of seriousness and avoid tying the problems toany real consequences. For all their bravado about not believing thegovernment, media, or other officials, they are susceptible to the mostsimplistic of political messages. While cynical chic audiences may, asFrye said, "hiss the villain with an air of condescension ... making apoint of the fact that they cannot take his villainy seriously,"the machoexaggerators continue to circulate the simplistic images put out by themilitary, not exactly discrediting the images, just repeating them, halfseriously.It is a way of talking unique, among my respondents, to men, especially


13/31

476young manual laborers and military recruits. A plaster spattered whiteconstruction worker standing with his co-workers responded to myinitial questions this way: "The contras? I don't know. They're weird.They're a bunch of commies.""The contras?" I queried, perhaps "giving away" my surprise with asquawk. He laughed, so I laughed, too."Well, there's something wrong with them. If there wasn't nothingwrong with them, they wouldn't get pissed off that they took the moneyand shit."He and his co-workers discussed who the contras were for afew more seconds, then he exclaimed.

The contras can do whatever they want. As for Iran, I would like to see themblown off the face of the earth. They got no right leading us around. We'rebigger than them! We're better!" (Mocking "standingtall,"giving his voice anAM radio announcer's punch) "We'reAmerican!"40 (pause, then chuckle).I asked: "Areyou serious?"He said: "Dead serious. We should blow the shit out of them. Anti-aircraft-M 16's - Blam, Blam! But (pauses, then laughs), nothing I can do about it!"

This dialogue was not unusual. Many men brought in cartoon soundeffects as part of their positions. A young interviewee who was consid-ering joining the military explained why:

I'd fight the Russians, mow'em down ffffttttt (suddenly shifting to a pretend"hick"accent, as if to say, "I'm not saying this, it's somebody else, somebodylesser") - wanna throw some hand grenades, they'd give me a rifle, I could beRambo."I asked, "Why do you want to do that?"Once again in that funny mock "hick"accent, he said: "See, cuz I'm Ameri-can - gotta be patriotic."

The point is, it was impossible to tell whether these speakers wereserious or not: this young man also told me that his commission-seekingrecruiter lied to him. 'All government officials are liars," he claimed.But then he went back to comic book images, this time of Nicaraguans,

jungle bunnies, black people with big hats - they live in grass huts and theRussians would give them guns and make them be communists. I heardcommunism is like being in jail, like if you're not off the street by nine a jeepwill come by with guns and they'll start shooting at you."


14/31

477Calling Nicaragua "junglebunnies with big hats"and talkinglike a"hick"maybe a joke, but it maynot be. The machoapproach s notlimited to xenophobic viewpoints, though. A young black factoryworkertold his girlfriendand me that"Someoneshould cut the cackleon Reagan'sneck. Shoothim."Like chic cynicism,this macho hyperbolicrhetoricmakes the wholepolitical questionunreal.The other people listeningto these men didnot, for example, tryto dissuade them fromtheirideas, or backthemup either.The woman whose boyfriendwantedReagan'sneck cut didnot take the strutting eriously.Turning owardme, she said,"No,butseriously," nd then, once appropriately et apartfrom her unseriousboyfriend,tried to outline a real position.The constructionworkersstoodby politelysnickeringwhen theirco-workerurgedbombingIran.By drawingattention o the speaker, hiskind of speechalso makes allassertionsof selflesspatriotism oundabsurd, ikejokes.Macho hyperbole makes talking about politics easier, giving thespeaker heappearanceof certainty.One manbeganwithgreathesitan-cy to discuss the stock marketcrash,finishinghisphrasesapologetical-ly with "Ithink,"and "well,anyway, hat'smy opinion."He wanderedonto the topic of foreignpolicy,then to Iran.Suddenly,he paused,andwithnew foundvigorandcertainty, witchedto a machoexaggerator'sstance:"Iknow!Get toughwiththem. That's t!Theyshould be severe-ly punished or takinghostages,butthey'veneverbeen."His measuredpolitenessand formalitydisappeared:"Wekeep kissingtheirbacksideall thetime."The youngmilitarymen I interviewedall spoke likethis.Ensconcedina "habitus"hat says that politics does not have anything o do withregularpeople,but is justa blankscreen on which to projectaninflatedmasculinity,herealityof war s keptatbay.Does this display"really" ssumepowerlessness,as I am suggesting?Whatif, instead of ventingviolentangeraboutReaganor Iran,a mansaid suchthingsabout his wife,or aboutsomeoneelse he could realis-ticallyharm?Probablyhis friendswouldsay,"He'sonlykidding" r tryto cool him out. They did not, probablybecause it was so obviouslyunnecessary.Thebenefitof thiskindof speechis thatthespeakerneverhasto saywhether t is ajokeor not.


15/31

478Irreverent ypeIII: The literarycriticThere are no references to right and wrong here, either: the literarycritic analyzes the political performance disinterestedly, cuts throughthe political or moral content of the show and "penetrates"right to theesthetic core of the matter. Sitting in an armchair,observing, the liter-ary critic does not pass judgement. Their key phrase is a passive, "Itappears...."In viewing politics as well as television fiction, many Americans lookmore at the formal exigencies of the show rather than at real life refer-ences. Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz found that Westerners are moreapt to look at "Dallas" as an artistic construction rather than a depic-tion of "real life."41Americans, for example, will comment on the formof the show - how the episode will end, how a character cannot reallyhave died because all the actors have to be employed next week.Americans watching "Dallas" pretend to be "behind the scenes,"unfooled by the spectacle, shrewdly calling the characters by their"real"(stage) names, rather than the names of the characters they play,as if the smooth, glamorous names adopted by stars are not also part ofa theatrical image. They pretend to second-guess the writers'plans. Ontheir toes, they always try to peer behind the artifice to the realitybehind it. As in politics, though, television viewers' attempts to extri-cate themselves from the fiction of "Dallas" does not lead them out ofthe world of the flickering screen. Instead, it firmly embeds thesebehind-the-scenes critics between the pages of People Magazine.Similarly, the literary critics sit with the audience but observe theaudience's reactions abstractly, claiming to be not actually feeling thesame feelings they attribute to the audience. Thus, a legal secretarypronounced, "Itis interesting to see what aspects of the story get moreattention. It hadn't been live on national networks until Ms. Hall hadher say.... If anything short of a court marshal happens (to North) he'llbe viewed as some sort of hero."Instead of getting involved herself in admiring Hall's or North's looks,or arduously scraping away the glitter to glimpse the grim realitybehind the show's scenes, this literary critic hovers serenely above thescene. She is seemingly "wise to what it's really about," rational, notcaught up in the spectacle of Fawn Hall's hair or Oliver North's smile,and yet still not needing to sort through the knotty details or evaluatethe actions by any standards of truth, reason, or morality. Finding the


16/31

479truth is too difficult, maybe impossible. As the legal secretary said,USA Todayin hand,

It has been my opinion for a long time that newpaper articles are more orless trying to fill up space. They give all the information at the beginning andthen repeat themselves over and over until x amount of space is taken. I'drather watch the evening news - just a half an hour is all I want to find outwhat happened.

Ironically, it is the literary critics and those conversing with them whoare most often apt to complain about the media's "sensationalism,"asthe legal secretary called it. Another complained that it is "billed asentertainment," not recognizing his and his companion's own roles intreating it as entertainment. Yet some people, according to Liebes andKatz, treat even "Dallas" more seriously, drawing out real life, moralis-tic implications of the show. The literary critic assumes that it would befoolish for the critic to treat it seriously when the rest of the audienceand players appear not to be. I asked one such man, "Do you think thetruth will come out of the Iran contra hearings?"He chortled,

Who knows? I like the way Oliver North handled himself in front of his peersand the people judging him. He handles himself maturely and with respect -I'd like to say honestly, but who knows? I like the way he's handling himself.When I see people like Admiral Poindexter getting up there smoking his pipelike he's sitting in his house - it's too casual for me.

Without rancor, he might have been discussing the staging of a play. "Isaw Poindexter today, and he did a pretty good job but not half as goodas North did," said a community college student in a suburban mall.His father joined in, to say that "they should just figure out what wentwrong and fix it,"but the son interrupted:

"You can only get so much of it - you don't know half of what's going on.Oliver North admitted he lies. You don't know if what he's saying is true.You're not gonna get the truth, at least the important stuff."I asked, "So how come you like him?"He answered: "He's the underdog - you see a person being questioned by somany people, especially politicians and the way they address him."

The literary critics are trapped in their armchairs. They keep circlingback to the staging, and even imply that the show created the wholeissue. "The whole business of Olliewood," as one man called it, appar-ently would not exist if not for the cameras. "The only difference is,


17/31

480Reagangot caught."He and his wife railed at the "circusatmosphere"of thehearings.The solution,thehusbandsaid,would be to "take he tvcamerasout.Everyone's o concernedthey got everyhairin placeandallthatcrap.Theappearancesandimage s too much."This wayof talkingperhaps explainsmany people'swillingness o letthegovernmentkeep secrets.If it is justa show,andif, as the wife said,"itmakes us look like a laughingstockto the othercountries becausewe broadcast he hearings,"henwhybothershowing t? It has no realconsequences.Peoplein other countriesdo not die because of it;theyonlylaugh.A question impossible to ask in this context concerns the real-lifeeffectsof the show,or the reality hatmayexistapartfromthe show.Iasked the couple whetherthey thoughtthat the secret of arms ship-ments to Nicaraguacould be kept from the Nicaraguans hemselves,andmentioned,trying o sound as abstractedas the couple,that othercountries'newspapershad been talkingfor a while before ours didabout U.S.shipments o the contras.Unable to focus on thatquestion,the husbandimmediatelyshifted the focus back onto the audience-minushimself, he critic:"Thegeneralpublic s ratherapathetic. f theywere reallythatstrongagainst t - (pause).OliverNorth is a littlefish.They'replayingtup too much."42In contrast to the literarycritic's convoluted stance, this man fromCincinnati seemed genuinelyunable or unwillingto distinguishbe-tween the show and the real thing."OliverNorth's a hero. No, he's agood man on tv,'he began.

I asked,"Which, ood on tv,or a hero?""Hecomesacrossgood on television."I askedagain,"Whatdoes thatmean- he'sa good person,or a good actor?""He'sa good person,He'sshielding omeonehigher hanhim."

This is the man the literary riticsassumeto be typical, romwhom theliterary ritics ryso hardto distance hemselves.IntimidatedspeakersI: Willingbut unableThis response is neither defiantlyself-absorbed as the stances de-scribedabove are, nor is it a show of responsibility.Unlike the three


18/31

481types of irreverent speakers, who could capitalize on their ignoranceand powerlessness, these speakers seemed to acknowledge defeat, bykeeping as quiet as possible about things they felt unqualified to dis-cuss. Often women, always with low-status jobs or unemployed, peopleof this type let me interview them by mistake.One interview was in a windy, cement shopping plaza, where a market-research canvasser, dressed neatly in jeans and an old windbreaker,asked me to fill out her questionnaire about my cracker consumption,and to taste-test a new type of cracker. So I traded my opinions oncrackers for hers on politics.Her apathy was startlinglybland. In a monotone, she said that she real-ly had no idea what the Iran contra affair was. A young mother with amore than full-time job, living in a mass-produced suburb far from herjob, she was tired. She was "not interested in national politics," though"maybe something exciting will happen some day that will grab myattention."I asked: "What do you think - what do people mean whenthey say this country is a democracy?"

She answeredvery slowly:"Idon'tknow. long pause)I reallydon't know.Itjust has something o do with the bigwigs n Washington.They get paid totake care of all that so thatI don'thaveto get into it."News stories she would follow would address"missing hildren,because ofmyson... drugsandchildren."

Another person who spoke to me by "mistake,"to interrupt a street-person who was haranguing me, had also found no way at all to makegood on his ignorance; making his ignorance seem neither intentional,nor itself a commentary on the faulty political process.

"I really don't understand t (the Iran-contraaffair)so I could make nocomment. hear t on the newsandI don'tknowwhat'sgoingon."I asked:"Whatdo you think the mainquestion- the question, et alone theanswers is?Whatshouldtheybe findingout?"He said, apologetically,"Howthey use all that money.It don't seem right,does it? Heheh. I'msorry.I'mconfused. I don't knowthat much to makeadecision.Don'tputon the newswhatI haveto saybecause I don'tknowwhatto say."

He was serious about politics, and said he cared, but was afraid to talk.


19/31

482IntimidatedspeakerII: Cliche-usersFor some people, talking politics means trading aphorisms and fancyphrases. A New Jersey grandmother, for example, said that the stockmarket fall showed that

there is no one in authoritynow who has know-how... to deal with what'scoming up in the future,which is important o the commonmasses.... Youhaveto putinto the barrelbeforeyoucan takeout,andwe'vebeentakingouttoo long.You haveto paythefiddler f you'regoingto dance,right?

They often used words that begin with capital letters: "Freedom,""Democracy,""Masses." Of course these words have meanings; hun-dreds of them, in fact. Democracy, for example, often means, "politicalforms after the American fashion,"43or even just "American."One use of cliches might be to express thoughts the speaker has genu-inely felt. Another use could just be a means of saving face when sur-prised, nervous, or intimidated.The first use is like the way lovers use corny love songs. Several oldmen yelled at me, saying I should be asking about the Soviet occupa-tion of Afghanistan, that if the communists took over it would be worsethan any Iran contra affair, and that journalists are all a bunch ofleftists. These men certainly seemed convinced of their cliches. It wasimpossible to ask them anything that could call the clich6s' truth intoquestion.Some other clich6 users were equally concerned with the messagebehind the clich6s. One man, a dentist, wanted to sound patriotic,saying, "communism is encroaching. We have to watch our personalFreedoms - be vigilant. We have the right to know, and freedom ofspeech, but in a lot of ways that kills us. All the freedoms hinder usbecause you have to do some things in secret."

The competition is doing it, the man said, and referred to a litany ofSoviet evils. When I asked who the secret was being kept from, helaughed. "Hm. Ha. I don't know. That's a good question. The real mis-sion was to get the hostages [pause] out [pause]. I don't think the origi-nal intention was to fund the contras, and then launched on a fancifulexplanation of how the government suddenly found extra money on itshands and serendipitously decided to fund the contras with it. The


20/31

483truismshadbeen good tools fordisplayingpatriotismwithouthaving odevote serious concentrationto it. When they failed, though,it wasmoreimportant orhim to defendpatriotism han to continueto soundimpressive.In his versionof public speech, gettingthe right messageout was more important hansoundingsmooth.So, if not for his lackreferenceto other conversationsand his lack of information, couldclassifyhimas a "concerned peaker"seebelow).This man'sbrother, hough,was a rooferwho used clichesas a meansof saving ace. Trusimsandpuffywords affordsafety: t must be right fit is an aphorism.He relentlesslyclung to cliches, and repeatedver-batimwhat officialshad said about the affair: A few mistakesweremade, but the people involved were doing what's best for the coun-try.... The price of freedom is [pause] pretty expensive." I asked himfromwhom he thoughtthe secretwasbeingkept,and he bristledner-vously at being put on the spot, "You can't have everybody knowingeverything.Freedom means eternal[pause]Vigilance.You have to becareful." till,he madeno effortto persuademe orhisfamily.Most of the platitudinouspeople recited lessons in anti-communism,but one manseeminglyon the other side also appeared o be repeatingscatteredphraseshe hadheard,aboutthe Constitution's eingviolatedandso forth,withoutputting hemtogetheror beingableto explaintohiscompanion hereasoningbehindthe smoothphrases.

Concerned citizens I: Uninformedon principleOne wayof speakingseriouslyaboutpoliticsis to make an argument,to tryto convince,to tryto get out a message.Unlike the cliche-users,the concerned citizens displayeda more direct, engaged relation topolitics. However,some concerned people say they try to avoid thenewsbecausetheyfindit too upsetting.Readingabout theirignorancein a poll, one mightassumethatthey were apathetic.Mostlywomen,mostly young, manyblack, and manywho initiallysaid they did notwantto talk,perhapstheyhad more reasonthanothersto believe thatthe society should have become more fair,and so, felt more disap-pointedat it failings.One woman,for example,said she did not knowanythingabout the Iran Contra affair and was just about to take herleave whenshe circledback to saymore:


21/31

484I saw a thingbetweencommercials ndtheywerespending ikefortymillionon missilesor somethingand thentheygivea halfa millionto the homeless.WhenI look at things ikethat,I justthink: t's a bunchof shit.Really,whengrownmen and women can't even get along and instead of spendingongivingsomeone a home you spendit on thingsthatyou don't even knowifyou'regonnause - or whenyou do use themyou'regonnatotal out every-body.So that'swhyI don'tdeal with t. I tryto ignore t.

In anotherinterview,a woman stood quietlywhile her verbose com-panionspoketo me.Finally, hesoftly explainedwhyshe was so quiet:It's hard to find disappointmentn someone whose almostgot control ofyourwhole life. His [Reagan's]ecisionsarevery mportant.He can makethebigone to makeus alljustdisappear.And when he screwsup,it reallypissesmeoff,becauseI don't ikepeople playingwithmylifelikethat.I'm ustbare-ly in college,and don't haveanykids [laughs] ndhe screwsup, andI coulddie tomorrowwithouteverknowingwhathavinga babyfeels like or reachingmygoals or doing thingsI want to do:get a reallygood job and takecareofmymomandlet her relaxsome. So there'sno telling,so Ihaveto livemylifeday-by-day,auseI don'tknowwhat'sgonnahappen omorrow.

Theirwayof speakingdrawsattention o the substanceof the politicalworld,not the show.Peoplewho describedpoliticsless in termsof the"show"poke,themselves,n a less showy way.Rather hanputtingon ashow,they said with their quiet tone that there is almost no point inspeakingin such a meaninglessworld. Such an approachpainfullybrings o mind the adviceHegelcites on howone mightbestbringup ason:By makinghim thecitizenof a statewithgood laws.... His commonest unc-tions, are savedfrom nothingnessand given reality solely by the universalmaintainingmedium, hat s, through hepowerof the wholepeopleof whichhe is a member.The whole ... is that for which he sacrificeshimself,andthroughwhichsacrificehe fulfillshimself.44

Perceivinghe absenceof a good state,manypeoplespeakas if thereisnothing heycan do to maketheirworldmeaningful.

Concerned citizens II:Referringtopast conversations to establish apolitical positionFinally,I found a few people givingserious and somewhatinformeddiscussions of fundamentalssues of justice,fairness,and democracy.These responsesare the type polls expect and assume;these are the


22/31

485citizens"serious"ournalistsaspireto address.Theirresponsescarriedwith them a basicfaith n the speaker's apacityandrightto participatein politicaldecisions anddebates,andreferred o some information.Most importantly,hey referred o conversations hey themselveshadhad on the issue. Opinionsin this groupvaried,but unlike the unin-formedmessengers, hese people impliedthat it reallydid matterwhattheysaid. Previousdiscussions heyhad had on the matterwereimpor-tantenoughto repeat;repeating he discussionsgroundedsuchspeak-ers in a real context. The characteristicphrase among this type ofspeakerwas "We think...." That is, they all placed themselvesin agroup, evaluatingnot just the various opinions "outthere" but alsoevaluating heir own relationships o the people they perceive to beholding hoseopinions.When twonursestalkedaboutpolitics,theyreferred o earlierpoliticalconversations hey held on the ward,and to the alternative adio sta-tion thatplayedon the ward.Theywantedit known thatpoliticsis notjust for politicians;one listenedto the hearingswith her son. "Iwanthimto know thatjustbecausethey'rehigh muckymucks doesn't meanthey'repureand white."One manenergeticallydeclared, ourtimes,invariousways:

as an Americansoldier who fought n WorldWarII,I was in combat orfiveyearsand I knowa lot of vets. I can't find any veteranwho agreeswith thepollsthatsayNorthis a hero.Later,he mentioned: foundfouror fivepeoplewho say theywerevetswhosupportOliverNorth,butI asked themif theywere ever in combat, n actualcombat,andtheysaidno - they'rewhatwecall"playgroundoldiers."

He placed himselfvery preciselyin the politicallandscape. Comparethat to some of theirreverentpeakers,whoattributed heiropinionstothemedia:"Reaganwas cool before," aidone irreverentpeaker.Everybody iked him.But now,a lot of people cut up on him. Like if youwatch"Saturday ightLive,"hey'realwaysmaking t seemlike he'slying,soit seemshe usedto be good.Peoplelikedhim.Now,allthecomedianscop onhim,so whycan'tI?"

By consciously plantingthemselvesin a specific place in the sociallandscape, he concernedspeakerswereable to avoidbeing sweptintothe "spiralof silence"45 n which people, being generallyeager to


23/31

486please,are less likelyto talk about theirpolitical opinionsif they per-ceive that their opinions are unpopular.By referring o "their owntype"of person, they do not back off of unpopularor earnestlyheldopinions.

Content and formIn general,not justamongthe "concerned"peakers, he itemspeoplewould check off had they been presentedwitha questionnairedid notcorrelate,n mymind,withthe relationspeopledisplayed oward hoseopinions. Examples of the discrepancybetween the "contents"and"displays"bound:One "concerned"womansaid she believed North and Poindexterwere"doing he rightthingfor theircountry," ecauseherfriendwho touredNicaragua aid that "it s an extremely mpoverishednationandthere'svery little when you go to the grocerystore, very little on the shelf,maybe green beans and glasses." Though she favored governmentsecrecy,her displays embodied a democraticideal of honoring theopinionsof people like herself. She assumedshe should speakand beheard.Everybody excepta crystal-totingGratefulDead follower,whosaid the forces of Truthalwayswin) said that the hearingswould notreveal the truth about the Irancontra affair.Many types said that themoneyshould be spentathome,rather han abroad.

As ethnomethodologistswould predict,most of the interactionspro-vided continuouslyemergingredefinitionsof "whatwas going on."46So, althoughmanytypesof speakersbeganby saying"It'sall a show,"later conversationprovidednew meanings o the statement, raming tas a statementof fact,a complaint,or a joke,or a thingsaidto impressa journalist.For example,thisyoungblacksecretary's tatementcouldresemble heopinionof a literary-criticype.Shesaid,We have an immigrant from Russia in our office who says, "Oh, this is great,you can really hear the government."She doesn't realize - I mean, everybodyknows - even those that are not that political to those that are really intopolitics - that he's covering up, that it'sjust a big show.

Butlater,she earnestlydescribeda papershe wroteon CentralAmeri-ca for a community-collegeourse.While the Irancontraaffairmaybea show,and the people in powermaybe out for themselves,she was


24/31

487seriousandconcerned,andcontinuedwith a "We hink..." ypestance:

Whyis it so importanto keepSouthAmericaaway rom the influenceof theEast? It just seems like a waste of money and time. A lot of people - theworkingstaff- agree,but the lawyers- because it's corporate aw and sothey're eally nto the economics of it - they'reRepublicans, heydon'tagree.But the working people want to get out of Nicaragua- with people nothavingenoughfor welfare, or educationand themspendingbillions and bil-lionsof dollars thatreally ickspeopleoff.

FurtherquestionsraisedbythisapproachI have tried to show how"holding nopinion"meansdifferent hings odifferentpeople;to show thatpayingattention o displays s one waytostudythese differences;and to show how the contexthelps givemean-ingto thespeechandviceversa.But once it becomes clear thatdisplaysand context do matter,a rangeof relatedquestionscomes into view,suggesting he outlines of a moresystematicmethod for studying displaysin context. Three questionsemergeespeciallyclearly.A moresystematicmethod for answeringhese threequestionsandtheotherquestionsof thispaperwouldstudya set of people in a varietyofcontexts, to explore the relation between the broader social context,the immediatecontext,anddisplay.Studyinga set of people in a rangeof contexts,both public and private,would make it possible to askwhetherpeople do in fact displayunseriousposes because they arepoliticallypowerless.47How would such an approachbeginto addressthe threequestions?1. How can I know who the speakers"really" re,or how the displaysrelateto their "real" pinions?Wouldthey displayverydifferentrela-tions to politics in other contexts? My having acknowledgeddiffer-ences in displaysdoes not meanI have understoodall the differences.To the extent thatrespondentsand I live in the same culture,and cancommunicate,I could be confident that I interpretedtheir grins,chuckles,winks, and declamationscorrectly.However,to the extentthattheyand I do not share a culture, mayhavemisunderstood hem.Following hem around rom one context to anotherwouldhelpme fillin the outlines of their responses.Paul Lichtermansuggests thinking


25/31

488about the social researcher longtheselines,as a "translator,"omeonewho showshow the displaysmake sense in the person'scontext.48Thismeanslearning heir"language,"hich s bestaccomplishedby hearingpeers interpret ach other'sdisplays.2. How do displaysrelateto realpoliticalpower?How,if at all,does itmatterwhattheythink about these issues? Bourdieusayssome classesproduceserious,"politica" pinions,whileothers"respondnot to thequestionthat is actuallyasked, but to a question they producefromtheir own resources, i.e., from the practical principlesof their classethos."49Manystudies show that elite groupsare morelikelyto profferpoliticalopinionswhensurveyed,5"morelikelyto vote andparticipatein manyother aspectsof politicallife,51and more likelyto feel com-fortablespeakingpublicly.52 hey are shownto havemore practiceatmaking nfluentialdecisionsin their obs,and often haveanopportuni-ty to see the broaderpoliticalpicturein the course of their work.53People may intuit their class chancesat being in that position of re-sponsibility, nddevelopa relation o politicsbasedon their chances.54Any talkaboutpoliticsmaybe nothingbut a palliative or structurallypowerlessgroups,a "symbolic ubstitute or power,a meansof repro-ducingthe absenceof politicalpower."55 studyof the broadercon-text would tracemomentsof "concerned peech," o find out how,if atall, they are receivedby the larger politicalinstitutions hat have thepowerto act on the concernsexpressed.5 Does citizens'seriousnessever become more than a symbolic substitutefor power? Goffmanwould look atthe face-to-face nteraction,buta studyof contextshouldincludeexaminationof a pool of "resources"argerthan the situationGoffmanwoulddescribe.3. What context could elicit the public voices of people who neverengagein publicdebate?Whatis "public"n that case? Manystudiesshow that membership n a publiclyaccessible group is a powerfulforce working against the limitationsof class.57The question thatresearchntopoliticaldisplayscouldbeginto answer s, "Bywhat nter-activeprocessesdo groupsreproduce,or challenge, heirpower?"MichelFoucaultsaysinstitutionaldiscoursesautomatically reatesub-jects.58Presumably, ome "total"contexts, such as jails and mentalhospitals, more "automatically"voke certain subjects (as Foucaultsays)andcertaindisplays asGoffmansays).But othercontextsdo notworkso automatically.


26/31

489So, it would be especially important to study the displays common involuntary associations and other potentially public groups: the PTA's,fishing clubs, bars, and unions that can be the spawning grounds foractivism. Such a study would show how these groups help membersstay politically unengaged, or how these groups help members engagein broader issues. Part of what makes an issue public is how membersdefine and discuss it.59 Even if political talk is just a palliative forpowerlessness, this structural situation will not change unless manygroups act to change it, and action must be accompanied by speech.6"

Honoring the public contextAmericans tend to "form the habit of thinking of themselves in isola-tion and imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands."61Byemphasizing the privateness of opinions, standard political sociologyresearch can accentuate this individualism, undermining the politicalimportance of face-to-face discussion and organizations that classicaldemocratic theorists62 call the "schools for democracy."Before pollingbecame widespread, politicians relied on labor representatives, grass-roots party leaders, and other voluntary associations for a picture ofthe public's opinion.63When the usefulness of polling was still a matterof debate, a happy quantifier defended polls against symbolic inter-actionist Herbert Blumer's critique, writing: "Sooner or later theopinion poll is going to be used by government as a day-to-day publicopinion audit. As such it will be a means of holding pressure groups incheck and forcing them to put their alleged popular support in evi-dence."64Such research should not be used as an understudy for the absentpublic sphere, or as a more democratic measure of the popular willthan actual organizations. If, as John Dewey said, "communication ofthe results of social inquiry is the same thing as the formation of publicopinion,"65 privatized methods such as polling could become whatHabermas would call a "system" n danger of "colonizing the lifeworld"as it is intersubjectively embodied in public speech. Researchers inter-ested in giving new life to the public sphere should respect politicalspeech itself, both as a form of action in itself and as a topic forresearch.


27/31

490

AcknowledgmentsAppreciation and thanks for helpful comments and insights from BobBlauner, Robert Bellah, Aaron Cicourel, Marcy Darnovsky, ArlieHochschild, Rich Kaplan, Arvind Rajagopal, Jay Rosen, Lyn Spillman,Ann Swidler, the Theory and Society reviewers of this article, andabove all, Paul Lichterman.

Notes1. ABC/WashingtonPostsurvey,Aug.3-5. (exactwording:"Doyou happen o knowwhichside theU.S.is backing n Nicaragua,he rebelsor thegovernment?")2. For a summary f someof these,see JayRosen,"PublicKnowledge/Private gnor-ance,"Centerfor War,Peace and the News Media,vol. 1 (1987): 1-4. He citespolls thatfound,for example, hat one quarterof Americansbelieve China s a ter-ritoryof theSovietUnion;only 19 percentknew n 1985 that theUnited Stateshasno policyagainst irst-strikeuse of nuclearweapons;and less than halfcould namethe leaderof theSoviet Unionrightaftera major ummitmeetinghadputhisnamein all the headlines.Also see W. Russell Neuman, TheParadoxof Mass Politics(Cambridge;HarvardUniversityPress,1986).3. SeymourMartinLipsetand WilliamSchneider,TheConfidenceGap,(New York:FreePress, 1983) and an updateof some of theirstatistics,"TheConfidenceGapduring he ReaganYears,1981-1987," PoliticalScienceQuarterly,ol. 102, 1-23;see also James Wright, The Dissent of the Governed: Alienation and Democracy inAmerica, rom QuantitativeStudiesin Social Relationsseries,PeterRossi, editor(N.Y.:AcademicPress,1976).4. J.L. Austin, How to Do Thingswith Words Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,1965).5. The literatureon this is largeand wide ranging.Severalgood collections of essaysshowthe varietyof approaches o the question, ncludingJohnGumperzand Dell

Hymes, editors Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication(New York:Holt, 1972) and Pier Paolo Giglioli'sLanguageand Social Context(NewYork:Penguin,1972).6. Studies in Ethnomethodology, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 1967), 29.7. It airedon PacificaRadio,KPFA-FM,November,1987.8. "Public Opinion Does Not Exist," in Communication and Class Struggle, vol. 1,ArmandMattelart nd SethSiegelaub, ditors, N.Y.:InternationalGeneral,1979),124-129.9. Robert Bellah, Richard Madsen, William Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven Tipton,Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1985).10. Robert Lane (N.Y.: Free Press, 1962). Though I am criticizing Lane's methodologyhere, I would like to acknowledge with gratitude, that discussions I had with himwhen I was an undergraduate played a big part in inspiring me to continue my stu-dies past college.11. Ibid., 9, footnote 7.12. Ibid., 7.


28/31

49113. For an interesting discussion of the way the "spontaneous" interview with the "or-

dinary" person is correctly staged, and how filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard tried to"create" a different kind of "person" by staging a different type of interview, seeColin MacCabe, Godard: Image, Sounds, Politics (Bloomington: Indiana Univer-sity Press, 1980), especially p. 145.14. For a thoughtful discussion, see Jay Rosen, The Press and the Public, (unpublisheddissertation, New York University, 1985).15. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1958).16. Jurgen Habermas, Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1 (Boston: Beacon,1984).

17. Bellah, et al. Habits of the Heart.18. "Speaking of the President: Political Structure and Representational Form in U.S.and Italian Television News," Theoryand Society, 13, 829-850.19. "The Audience Experience with Television News," Journalism Monographs, 55,April, 1978.20. The Interpretationof Cultures, (N.Y.: Basic Books, 1973), 6-7.21. For example, I took part in a week-long training session for a study of physical andmental health in 1980 (and went door-to-door for half a year collecting interviewdata, in a study co-sponsored by the Yale University Department of Sociology andthe U.S. Department of Health; the actual trainers were out-of-town market re-searchers) in which about one hundred interviewers were trained to conduct inti-mate, hour-long interviews in subjects' homes. The instructors treated this issue asa simple one: simply repeat the question three times and follow the interview sched-ule. When alone with strangers in their homes, asking about such issues as sexualproblems, criminal record, psychological problems, and drug use, ignoring the nor-mal cues of interaction was sometimes a rude and sometimes a dangerous thing todo. Many interviewers worried about that; some eventually quit this job because ofthe eeriness and potential danger involved. It was like the experiment Garfinkeloutlines (Studies in Ethnomethodology) in which he tells his students to go homefor vacation and pretend not to take any background knowledge for granted.Parents assume that students are ill, crazy, or trying to be rude.22. Ann Swidler, "Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies," American SociologicalReviews, 51 (1986): 273-286.23. C. Wright Mills, "Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motives," in Irving Horo-witz, editor, Power, Politics and People: The Collected Essays of C. WrightMills,(N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1963).24. Ibid., 447.

25. Burns Roper, "Some Things That Concern Me," Public Opinion Quarterly 47(1983), 303-309.26. Roper, ibid., and Sam McFarland, "Effects of Question Order on Survey Re-sponses," Public Opinion Quarterly45 (1981), 208-215.

27. Lipset and Schneider, The Confidence Gap, 235-236.28. A good example discovered by Joan Huber and William Form (Income and Ideol-ogy:An Analysis of the American Political Formula, (N.Y.: The Free Press, 1973))is that many people say that everyone in America has an equal chance to get ahead,while few say that a poor boy from a specific local bad neighborhood has a gooda chance as a rich boy from the country club district. See also Lipset and Schneider,The Confidence Gap, 241.29. Cited in Wright, The Dissent of the Governed, 95.30. All cited in George Bishop, Alfred Tuchfarber, and Robert Oldendick, "Opinions


29/31

492on FictitiousIssues: The Pressureto Answer SurveyQuestions,"PublicOpinionQuarterly 50 (1986): 240-250.31. Roper,"SomeThings hatConcernMe."32. Forexample,pro-contra-aid ollingenthusiastCarlEverettLadd(Public Opinion,Sept./Oct.1987), argues hat eventhoughpollsshow mostU.S.citizensopposedtocontraaid,Americans till holdfirmlyanti-communistalues,and that those stablevalues mattermore thantheirfleeting opinionsformedin ignorance.He says pollquestionsshouldemphasizethe "fact" hat the Nicaraguangovernment s "Com-munist," houldsaywhich side the U.S. presidentwason, and should not mentionthat the contrasweretrying o overthrow he Nicaraguan overnment.Facedwithwhat should seem to a polling enthusiast ike unequivocaldata, he finallycon-cludes,"insome instances(of polling)we simplydon't know whatmanyrespond-entsintended o say."33. Garfinkel, Studies in Ethnomethodology, 31.34. ArlieHochschild,TheSecondShift, N.Y.:Pantheon,1989).35. See, for example, Simon Frith, Sound Effects: Youth, Leisure, and the Politics ofRock and Roll, (N.Y.: Pantheon, 1981); Paul Willis, Profane Culture, (London:RKP,1978) and"Symbolismnd Practice:A Theoryforthe SocialMeaningof PopMusic,"(undated manuscript);Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz, "Cross-CulturalReadingsof 'Dallas':Patternsof Involvementn TelevisionFiction," paperread atthe InternationalTelevision StudiesConference,BritishFilm Institute,London,1985). However,newsreceptionstudies(forexample,DavidMorley,The "Nation-wide" Audience: Structure and Decoding, Television Monograph 10, British FilmInstitute,London) take the formsby which audiences discuss news programsasgiven,andonlyexamine he content.36. The felicitousphrasecomesfroman editorialprinted n the SanFranciscoChron-icle,Nov. 22, 1987, byReverandF. ForresterChurch.37. See FrancoMoretti,"TheSpellof Indecision,"n Marxism nd theInterpretationfCulture, Urbanaand Chicago:Universityof IllinoisPress, 1988; edited by CaryNelson and LawrenceGrossberg),339-344; also MarkCrispinMiller,Boxed In:TheCulture f TV(Evanston ll.:NorthwesternUniversityPress,1988).38. Anatomyof CriticismN.Y.:Atheneum,1970 (1957)), 47.39. His distinctionshouldgive organizations uch as ACORN pause.Such organiza-tions assumethatgivingpeoplea smallproblem o solve such asgettinga stop signwillinspire hem to moveon, to tackle argerproblems.40. JohnGumperzshows how important uch mock accents are.In DiscourseStrate-gies (Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1982), Gumperzquotesa blackstu-dent who had just asked his professor, in "standard"English,for a fellowshiprecommendation.Mockinga "hick" ccent,the black student turnedto the otherblack studentspresentand said,"Ahmagit me a gi-ig,"meaning"I'mgoingto getsomemoney,"and saidin an accent that"said" o the other blackstudents,"This swhatwe blackshave to do to survive n whitesociety,butI'mstillwithyou."41. "Cross-Culturaleadingsof 'Dallas."'42. The literary ritics'responseto the stock-market rashwasparticularlynteresting.Mostpeoplewith whomI spoketreated hepoliticians' nd stockbrokers'alarmasa show, too, and did not mentionany realconsequencessuch a show mighthave.Ironically, uch lack of confidencein the mediamay have minimized he crash'seffect: f consumersdid not believe mediareportsof the crash,they maynot havecut back on their consumptionor investment.StandardKeynesianeconomics


30/31

493would say that a falling market is an important factor in the spiral of shrinking con-sumption and shrinking production that can lead to a depression.43. Geoffrey Gorer, quoted in Lane, Political Ideology, 82.44. The Philosophy of Hegel, Carl Friedrich, editor (N.Y.: Modern Library, 1954), 268.45. The Spiral of Silence (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984).46. This is a good example of the problems involved in distilling "illocutionary force"out of individual sentences, as language philosophers such as John Searle say ispossible to do. It is also an argument against content analysis as a method of analy-sis, because counting words or phrases would simply miss the tone and subsequentreappraisals of the phrases.47. This would add "displays" as a step in the process of acquiescence described inJohn Gaventa's Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appala-chian Valley (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1980).48. Paul Lichterman, "Revisiting a Gramscian Dilemma: Problems and Possibilities inBourdieu's Analysis of Culture and Politics," paper delivered at American Socio-logical Association meeting, August 1989.49. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986), 435.50. Joe Francis and Lawrence Busch, "What We Don't Know About the 'Don'tKnows,"' Public Opinion Quarterly 45, (1975), 208-215; also Jean Converse,"Predicting 'No Opinion' in the Polls, Public Opinion Quarterly, 40 (1976): 515-530.

51. See for example, Sidney Verba, Norman Nie, and Jae-on Kim, Participation andPolitical Equality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978).52. See, for a splendid study of this, Jane Mansbridge, Beyond Adversary Democracy,(Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980).53. Carole Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory (N.Y.: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1973).54. Bourdieu, Distinction, One man in a baseball hat and a work uniform, for example,declined a taped interview: "You should ask that guy [nodding toward a dapperman in a three-piece suitl. I don't read the politics stuff. I'm no politician." On theother hand, an elite-university student said that the reason she stayed informed wasthat "if you are in a position of responsibility in government la real possibility forherl, or voting even, it's important to be informed."55. Robert Alford and Roger Friedland, "Political Participation and Public Policy,"Annual Review ofSociology, vol. 1 (1975): 474.56. James Wright, (The Dissent of the Governed), argues that political alienation, asmeasured statistically, has risen and fallen in the post-war era in tandem withuntrustworthy acts on the part of the government. The problem is, I suspect, thatgovernment officials engage in untrustworthy acts often. Whether they are caughtprobably depends partly on the public impetus to discover or ignore such acts. Solack of trust in the government is not just an effect of untrustworthy governmentalactions, as Wright says, but also, lack of trust causes governmental dishonesty to beexposed, in effect, bringing such scandals into public existence.57. Roland Cayrol, "Du bon usage des sondages," and Guy Michelat and Michel Simo-net, "Les aux questions politiques," both in Pouvoirs, 33, (1985),5-14; also Verba, Nie, and Kim, Participation and Political Equality. As a unionist Iinterviewed succinctly described the importance of membership, "80% of thepeople, I categorize as cabbage heads.... Of the other 20%, maybe 10% are in onthe [Irancontra] affair, and the other 10% do think, and might do something if therewas an organizationfor them tofollow."


31/31

49458. See, for example,Archaelogyof Knowledge nd the Discourseon Language, N.Y.:Pantheon,1972), 55.59. HannahPitkin,"Justice:On RelatingPrivateand Public,"Political Theory,vol. 9(August1981):327-352.60. One of thefirstpoliticaleventsI helped organizewas a teach-in.Toward he endofit, someone yelled, "Whyare we just sittingaroundtalking?I thoughtwe weregonnado something." timidly responded hatorganizing he teach-inwasdoingsomething,butI hadmydoubts.61. DemocracynAmerica,J. P.Mayer,editor(GardenCity:Doubleday,1969).62. See CarolePateman,Participationnd DemocraticTheory.63. BejaminGinsburg,TheCaptivePublic:How MassOpinionPromotesStatePower,N.Y.:BasicBooks, 1986).64. JulianWoodward,"Discussion,"n HerbertBlumer'sarticle,"PublicOpinionandPublicOpinionPolling,"1948:AmericanSociologicalReview,13, 542-554.65. ThePublicand itsProblems,Denver:AlanSwallow,1927).

A Study in Goffmans Spirit

Documents

Transcript of A Study in Goffmans Spirit