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.