Behave! You're on show!

 Although some parts of the article were fairly dry and humdrum, there seemed to be small bursts of light when Goffman flashed a facet of everyday life that I previously had not noticed nor thought it was worth considering, and made it a significant and almost vital ingredient of interaction. It is these small blowings of the mind that intrigue me and intensify my attraction to the social world around us. I think that relatability is key and I was definitely able to link my personal experiences with both the lecture and the reading this week - who would have thought that being a waitress would give me a heads-up in these major sociological ideas?

In the lecture, to differentiate between front and back stage, Andy used waitressing as an example. I’m a damn good waitress, even if I do say so myself, and I really do like my job but some tables are frustrating, mean and just plain rude, but what can I do? Nothing. As a front stage performer, I must adhere to the accepted social rules, and simply smile and nod while abuse is hurled at me and personal attacks start flying! Why? Because “the customer knows best” of course.  It is a strange power relation, which I’ve never completely understood. It is not until I’m in the safety of the back stage (the store room or the kitchen) that I can let steam fly and let my true feelings, as ugly as they may be, shine. And trust me, you don’t want to be there when that happens.

I also noticed that there is a front and back stage when serving playful and joking customers. The other night I decided to skew the social life drama and played a little bit of a different role. When a customer had clearly finished his plate (he practically licked his plate clean) he said “Oh I’m not sure whether I’ve finished with this one” [insert chuckle at his own joke]. I promptly responded, “OK, I will leave that one there for you”. There was a slight awkward silence when he realised I wasn’t playing the obedient no-personality waitress role but instead had teased him. He then stated “You’re a little bit of a cheeky one!” as I replied “Waitresses do have personalities too, sir”.  It is when one steps away from the normative front stage performance that the social rules are broken and things seem to get a little bit awkward and whacky. Although I am tempted, this is the furthest I’m willing to extend my back and front stage experimentation within the workplace – simply because I would really like to keep my job.

For all those waiters/waitresses out there, or people who are interested in this extensive example, I found an article that focuses on “doing gender” in terms of waitressing and serving. The article relates to Goffman’s idea of front and back stage performances, using gender as the key theme in the front stage arena. It explains how females perform gender in a normalised way, which may be different to a back stage performance. Females either stifle their back stage gender performances (because it is not deemed socially acceptable or appropriate), or they aim to blend their back stage gender performance with their front stage so they can be their ‘true’ self, whilst adhering to social expectations. Ultimately, it aims to decipher how waitresses do and perform gender in their front stage work place (which is clearly different from their backstage persona).

Ultimately, next time you go to a restaurant, please don’t be mean to the poor waiters/waitresses – or else they will bitch about you in the kitchen!

Tibbals, C 2007, ‘Doing Gender as Resistance: Waitresses and Servers in Contemporary Table Service’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, vol.36, no.6, pp. 731-751. 

Goffman: goodman or badman?

What a reading.

I could go on for hours detailing and reiterating Goffman’s study, but considering that would be a very similar route to all the other precious blogs, I thought I’d take you on a slightly different journey, exploring Goffman’s methodology. I take for granted that you have all read the article “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor” (or if you are a more blasé UOW student, at least the introduction and conclusion). It is valuable to understand that to aid in the data collection, Goffman participated in a “brief observational study of mental patients” (p 48). This methodology acts as Goffman’s foundation for his study, yet it is this basic groundwork that seems to weaken his professionalism and validity.

To my fellow SOC231 students, you will have a head start in where I’m going with my query as I aim to undermine Goffman’s methodology, claiming it should be, in modern sociology, classed as unethical and hence invalid. It is on page 48 of the article, in the referencing, that it states that for two months Goffman “participated in the social life of the ward in the official capacity of a normal control, eating and socializing with the patients during the day and sleeping overnight occasionally in a patient’s room” (p 48). Although Goffman's sample size was only small, it does not pardon the fact that these people have the right to be treated ethically and decently.

I think that Goffman clearly had insufficient engagement with ethic committees, simply because the methodology seemingly would not adhere to current guidelines. Although it is evidently a participant observation, it can be questioned as to whether or not the patients gave complete, informed consent. Whilst the reference clearly failed to note as to whether this is true or false, there also remains to be an uncertainty as to whether the patients have the mental ability to consent.  If this were true, it would seem that he preyed on a very vulnerable and defenceless minority of society. There is neither privacy nor anonymity for the participants (providing real names), and was ultimately highly invasive (even I wouldn't enjoy being constantly watched in my home). I believe that Goffman intruded on and hence exploited patients who were mentally fragile and unstable. Ultimately, Goffman offers a relatively vague and unclear description of his methodology and hence it needs clarification.

Goffman invaded the private space of destitute human beings for support and examples that could easily be obtained through more autonomous selves. On page 63, Goffman uses a case study of the Shetlandic Community to highlight the differences between social classes in our society. Yet, it is on page 53 and 54 where Goffman uses the two hospital wards as an example of symmetrical and asymmetrical classes. It is paragraphs likes these that tend to frustrate me in Goffman's work as he is ultimately exploiting helpless people for an example which could have been obtained from a group of independent people. I'm sure it would have been adequate of Goffman to use the Shetlandic Community to demonstrate the classes, instead of delving into the lives of the mentally ill.

So why is Goffman the exception? Why can he use a particularly unethical approach as a basis for his investigation and still be recognised as a powerful and influential sociologist? Is it because he does not class his studies as ‘theories’ or that at the time it was accepted and it should therefore be accepted today? Surely I am not the only sociology student that noticed this flaw, so why does everyone simply ignore it? I do not doubt that Goffman has made significant contributions to the world of sociology, but I have reservations about his unethical and amoral methodologies - primarily in this article. Ultimately, Goffman’s work is potentially dangerous and obstructive if not understood with a critical mind.

Please, feel welcome to attack (not physically) my blog with love or hate comments.  

And so it begins...

Finally got around to making my soc250 blog. Check.

Soc lovers, please stay tuned for many sociology-related blogs with a twist.

Now to go and youtube cats.