Dramaturgical Theory

26
Dramaturgical Theory Presented by: Janelle Kluczynski, Toni Rence, Samantha Savaglio, & Rod Strut “The Great Stage of Human Life” – Philebus

description

Dramaturgical Theory. Presented by: Janelle Kluczynski , Toni Rence, Samantha Savaglio, & Rod Strut. “The Great Stage of Human Life” – Philebus . Erving Goffman (1922 –1982). Main theorist of the Dramaturgical Theory Schooled in symbolic interaction theory - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Dramaturgical Theory

Dramaturgical Theory

Presented by:Janelle Kluczynski, Toni Rence,

Samantha Savaglio, & Rod Strut“The Great Stage of Human Life” – Philebus

Erving Goffman (1922 –1982) Main theorist of the

Dramaturgical Theory Schooled in symbolic

interaction theory Extended Mead’s basic insights

by viewing everyday human behavior as distinctly dramatic, or theatrical

His works include:› The Presentation of Self in

Everyday Life (1956) (1959)› Behavior in Public Places (1963)› Relations in Public (1971)› “Role Distance” (1961)› “Where the Action is” (1967)

2Wood (2004)

Erving Goffman Cont’d Developed theoretical insights into the drama

inherent in routine social life Skillfully observed and theorized how people

perform in everyday life Once wrote that “it is social situations that provide

the natural theatre in which all bodily displays are enacted and in which all bodily displays are read.”› Emphasizes Goffman’s focus on how physical, or bodily, actions

are used per formatively to craft and project impressions of individuals and to define the nature of particular situations.

His theorizing provides a basis for understanding human interaction in everyday life

3Wood (2004)

Theatrical Metaphor Extended metaphorical description that

explores social world as if it were a theatrical performance› We all hide behind a set of masks

Questions the idea of personal identity Tom Burns compares it to a Russian Doll- a

series of selves, one inside of the other (B106-107)

Similar to Goffman’s Game-theory› We all play a game in which we attempt to

strategically outwit our rivals for personal gain 4

Influenced By Kenneth Burke

› Grammar of Motives and Permanence and Change Behavior and the motives behind them

Marcel Mauss› Linked the theatrical analogy with ritual (b109)

Victor Turner› Tied dramaturgical expressiveness and the

ritual meanings it utilized (b109) Lévi-Strauss (b110)

› The Savage Mind Ritual has a reconciling and reunifying

function5

SIAC Schema Acronym developed by Philip

Manning based on Goffman’s teachings› Attempts to specify broad

assumptions people use in social interactions

Situational Propriety› Meanings of actions are derived

from the context in which they are used

› Must have knowledge of situation to understand behavior

› Types of Contexts Encounters- single focus of

attention Social Occasions-event

justifies existence Social Gatherings- loose

groupings Social Situations- broadest

Involvement› Capacity to give or withhold

proper attention to the activity Accessibility

› Being accessible to friends and strangers

› Keeps us as members of a common social world

› Ex- common courtesies such as telling the time or giving directions

Civil Inattention› Willingness to be seen › A sign of deference› Respect we give to and owe from

strangers Ex- avoiding eye contact in an

elevator

6

Dramaturgical Model This model relates

ordinary social interaction to theatrical performance

The setting, or context, of interaction is viewed as a stage

The people who are “acting” are actors and those who are “watching” are the audience

Everyday humans are performing as if in a play

7Wood (2004)

The 6 Dramaturgical Principles Performances Team Region Discrepant roles Communication out

of characters Impression

Management

8

Dramaturgical Principle: Performance (p41-42)

“All activity of a given participant on a given occasion that serves to influence in any way any of the other participants” (40)

In order to be successful, actors must convince audience that their performance is reality

Must be “idealized”- put in the best light, compatible with cultural norms and values› Can also be “negative idealizations”- worst light

“Mystification”- maintaining a distance from the audience to appear more interesting

Are often misrepresented because symbolic ideas can be easily persuaded› Ex- forging a birth certificate to pass as aristocracy

9

Performance Con’t

Wood (2004) 10

Difference in tone and intensity distinguishes stage acting from “acting-out” (which goes on in everyday conversation

“Front Stage”- a set of stereotyped expectations› Props, appropriate facial expressions,

role attitudes “Back Stage”- time and space for the

preparation of procedures, disguises, and materials

Dramaturgical Principle: Team (p42)

Successful performances are usually done by teams

Can be compared to as secret societies Run by Directors

Wood (2004) 11

Dramaturgical Principle: Regions (p 42-43)

Perform in “Front Regions”› In order to succeed, there must be an

agreement between the team and the audience that what is portrayed is actual reality

Rehearse in the “Back Regions”› Space to rehearse, where disguises and

materials are stored (b112) A “Guarded Passageway” connects these two

regions › Ex- Funeral Parlor

These regions allow teams to keep secretesWood (2004) 12

Dramaturgical Principle: Discrepant Roles

People with these roles try to gain access to team secretes by pretending to be part of the team

Attempt to gain access to backstage Most have a right to access this area

but abuse the privilege for their own gain

Examples- informer, confidant, colleague, mediator, servant

Wood (2004) 13

Dramaturgical Principle: Discrepant Roles(p 43)

5 types of secretes that teams have› “Dark Secrets”- incompatible with team’s

image› “Strategic Secrets”- what the team plans to

do› “Inside Secrets”- identify a person as a team

member› “Entrusted Secrets”- demonstrate

trustworthiness› “Free Secrets”- disclosed without discrediting

team performance14

Dramaturgical Principle: Communication Out of Principle(p 43-44)

Performers disclose information that damages their face

4 Forms of out-of-character outbursts› “Treatment of the absent”- involves

uncomplimentary role-playing or terms of reference

› “Staging Talk”- meant to assure others that everything went well

› “Team collusion”- allows the audience to have a special relationship with the team

› “Realigning actions”- recourse to humor Ex- saying “it was a joke”

15

Dramaturgical Principle: Impression Management (p 44)

Avoid projected self to be confused with a presented self

Depends on audience to limit any interactional damage

“Wild Card”- adding uncertainty to the conversation

Wood (2004) 16

Impression Management The process of managing setting, words,

nonverbal communication, and dress in an effort to create a particular image of individuals and situations

Our efforts to create and project certain impressions may be either highly calculated or unintentional – Goffman (1959)

We may be highly strategic in crafting an image but unaware we are creating an impression

Many believe it is manipulative and deceitful› It can be, however, deceptive and unethical

17Wood (2004)

Ways We Manage Impressions in Everyday

Life Women remove hair

from bodies:› Legs › Underarms

Act differently when with friends, then with family

Professional interactions and personal interactions

Drinking straight from the carton when at home, but when in front of others using a glass

Look as though you are paying attention in class to get the approval of a professor

Hiding your accents in front of people

Dressing professionally in front of professors and not in front of family and friends

18Wood (2004)

Face “Embarrassment and

Social Organization” (1965)

We are guardians of face-to-face situations

Motive is to protect social situations

We project a self that has positive social value› Known as a person’s

“face” Protecting our “face”

makes us monitor our actions

Face-work “makes our actions consistent with out projected selves” (g39)› Maintained through

avoidance or corrective actions

The result of face-work is a “ritual equilibrium”

Embarrassment occurs when a projected self is not maintained

Loss of face occurs when the projected self and the actual self does not coordinate together

19

FRAMES Models we rely on to make sense of

experience We rely on frames to define situations for

ourselves and others We learn frames through interaction with

the generalized other, or society as a whole Members of a society or a social community

share many common frames for interaction Typically reflect cultural knowledge

› Vary from culture to culture20Wood (2004)

Role Performance Role- represents routines or modes of behavior

appropriate to specific social positions (b 107) Comprised of

› inventiveness and improvisation› Meaningful content- posture, movements,

gestures, wording Learned by imitation, practice, and

experience› Stamina, timing, and judgment

Wood (2004) 21

Levels of Euphoria Levels of euphoria are based on contextual

norms An inappropriate level can indicate a “faulty

person” “Euphoric” Occasions

› When exchanges run smoothly with minimal embarrassment

“Dysphoric” Occasions› When exchanges are “derailed” due to

Wood (2004) 22

Criticism on Erving Goffman Lack of Clarity… Does “Life is Drama” as a metaphor explain this

theory thoroughly? Wood says, “Bruce Wiltshire (1977) argues that theater use as a

metaphor, but limited as a description of social life and interaction among people”, (2004, p.124).

Bruce Gronbeck argues if the Dramaturgical model fits more into Art or Science, (1980).Gronbeck also points out that the Dramaturgical Model can be used in many diverse fields of studies like; Political Science, Sociology, Criminology, Psychology, Mass Communication, Anthropology, and Psychiatry; therefore, “exploring the dramaturgical perspective [can] generate lawful relationships that can perhaps be molded into full-blown scientistic theories,”(Gronbeck, 1980, pp. 315-16).

Gronbeck, B.E. (1980). Dramaturgical theory and criticism: The state of art (or science?). The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 315-330.

Wood, J. (2004). Communication theories in action: An introduction (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA, Wadsworth) 23

Criticism on Goffman Cont’d Front Stage/ Back Stage

› David and Cheryl Albas (2007)say that, “front stage/back stage is considered ‘the game’, and it is used to bring out the fun aspects of encounters,” (p. 554).

›“Goffman turned away from interactional concerns (the traditional focus of sociology)” to focus on how people interpreted different events and situations, “which may have different meanings (a dispute or a joke) by ‘applying the relevant frame’,” (C, Albas, & D, Albas, 2007, pp. 554-55).

Impression Management › Barry Schwartz (1981)

claims Goffman never analyzes the authenticity of one’s performance; therefore, “performances rather than purposes become problematic,” (p. 201).

› “Interaction thus becomes a matter of managing impressions,” (Schwartz,1981,p. 201).

Albas, C.,& Albas, D. (2007). Cognitions, emotions, and identities. Contemporary sociology, 36 (6), 553-555.

Schwartz, B. (1981). Review. The American Journal of Sociology, 87 (1), 201-204 24

Critical Assessment of Dramaturgical Theory

People find this theory both accurate and useful

Metaphor or Reality? Lacks clarity

› Whether is claim to offer a metaphor for life or a factual description of life

Bruce Wiltshire (1977) argues that theater is useful as a metaphor is limited as a description of social life and interaction among people

25Wood (2004)

Criticism Continued Too Speculative? More speculative than empirical An Interest Group, Not a Theory?

26Wood (2004)