Introduction Erving Goffman (1922-1982) held the position of Benjamin Franklin Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. He served as President of the American Sociological Association in the year leading up to his death in 1982. Goffman is considered as the pioneer of the study of face-to-face interaction and has made a substantial contribution to micro-sociology. He is recognised as a major figure in the symbolic interaction perspective. In 2007 he was listed as the sixth most cited author in the humanities and social sciences (The Times Higher Education Guide, 2007). ‘On face-work’ is Goffman’s first essay from his book entitled ‘Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior’ which was originally written in 1955. It considers the approaches to human interaction alongside five more essays featured in this book and focuses on the concept of the face. His essay on face-work offers an analytic study which explores interaction as a ritual process. It is instrumental in providing a sound understanding of the definition of face and is a comprehensive insight into basic kinds of face-work. Some of Goffman’s other works include ‘The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life’, ‘Asylums’, and ‘Stigma’ which are a series of books about social behaviour. They are often referred to as modern classics. The essay on face-work can be considered as an expansion of Goffman’s previous works on interaction and included in this series. Summary Goffman refers to his essay on face-work as ‘An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction’ (Goffman, p.5). He essentially sets out to prove to the reader that social interaction is a ritual game that we act out and play by the rules. The ... ... middle of paper ... ..., P., & Plax, T. G. (1989). Compliance-resistance in the college classroom. Communication Education, 38, 214–229. Retrieved from Bylund, C., Peterson, E., & Cameron, K. (2011). A practitioner’s guide to interpersonal communication theory: An overview and exploration of selected theories. Patient Education and Counselling. Volume 87. Issue 3. Pages 261- 267. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.10.006. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London:Thousand Oaks: Carson, C., & Cupach, W. (2000). Facing Corrections in the Workplace: The Influence of Perceived Face Threat on the Consequences of Managerial Reproaches. Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol.28(3). Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Bahavior. New York:Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.
“Goffman has also been associated with the tradition of symbolic interactionism founded by Herbert Blumer…” (Love 378)
It is said that, the basic principle of such tradition is that humans communicate through symbols, which are a common currency through which a sense of self is created through interaction with others. Mead's theory neatly avoids the trap of positing a sense of self that is constructed entirely through symbols and society by making a distinction between two different selves: "I" which is the unsocialized self; the font of individual desires and needs, and "me," the socialized self, the self within society. (p. 184) Elliot rightly identifies the flaws of symbolic interactionism: namely, the obsession with rationalism and the wholesale disavowal of the emotional aspects of the self. The American sociologist Irving Goffman would seem to articulate a rather more fluid version of selfhood. Irving's self is constantly engaged in per formative space, routinely playing specific roles within particular scenes of social interaction. (2001) This conceptualization of self too is not without its flaws, for although Irving maintains that there is a self behind the masks, it is not this self but rather its per formative role-playing that appears to be analyzed in Irving's theory.
Automatically when people talk about human cloning that tend to be negative. Most reaction is people shouldn't play god or interfere with nature. Of course there are negative consequences that could come from cloning. On the other hand there is so many positive things that could save more lives than it would cost. Yes Cloning involves risky techniques that could result in premature babies and some deaths. That is why public policy needs to be changed on cloning. The medical possibilities are endless if federal money is given to research and develop cloning techniques.
Why would anyone want to clone their pets or loved ones? Some say that if they have those who they love cloned, that they will not have to miss them once they die. If people want to clone their pets, or family members, and have the money and technology to do so, should they be allowed to do so? This is something important to discuss because as technology evolves and becomes more available, the demand for such procedures is greatly increasing. Each year the number of cloning attempts increases….and Cloning pets, humans, or any other organism, should never be allowed no matter their financial status, their ability to give permission for these procedures, or the amount of technology available.
32). This information is broken down into the steps the author took to analyze the communication generated from the participants and situated into useful data. Raholm (2012) uses Odman’s hermeneutic process to analyze the data (p. 32). From this analysis three themes emerged. The first two themes established “the ethics of presence as being with the other” and “the ethics of presence as being for the other” are both logical and comprehensive in their description (p. 32). The comments from the participants are cohesive with the interpretation of the author. The third theme “the ethics of presence as encountering the fundamental call of the face” is confusing and not cohesive. This will be discussed in the next paragraph. There was no evidence noted to support the accuracy or of the study. The researcher conducting the study also functioned as the moderator and led the focus group discussions (p. 31). The method used leaves room for the researcher’s own bias to skew the discussion and results if measures are not taken to counter any bias. The article provides sufficient information to reproduce the study. The conclusions drawn by the researcher are verifiable. As the data provide direct quotes from the participants, allowing interpretation from the reader in addition to the
The cloning of animals and humans disregards the common ethics of the creation of humanity. Three types of cloning currently exist. There is therapeutic cloning, DNA cloning and reproductive cloning. Therapeutic cloning does not actually make a clone, it just makes stem cells. Stem cells are capable of becoming any type of cell that they are introduced to. For example, when a stem cell is introduced to a damaged heart, it transforms itself into a healthy heart cell. Even though stem cells might be very good for helping alleviate the pain of some diseases, the best use of stem cells is making embryos. This is the main reason why many people disagree with this kind of cloning. Courtney Farell and Rosalyn Carson-Dewitt wrote an article in which they stated “Some pro-life activists believe that such embryos represent human life, and do not approve of their use in the cloning process” (Farell and Carson-Dewitt 1). Reproductive cloning is creating an animal from only one parent. This type of cloning creates the most controversy because it completely disregards the whole idea of natural conception. The other very risky thing about this kind of cloning is that it has an extremely low success rate. Humans are so focused on the thought of making clones that they are unaware of the risk factors. Cloning makes life seem as though humans are the individuals who were meant to create. In the words of Eric Badertscher, “The cloning of human beings is particularly distasteful, and shows humans’ desire to ‘play God’ regardless to the risks of people born in this manner” (Badertscher 6). The controversy of cloning was born when the first successfully cloned animal was created in 1997. Dolly the Sheep became a focal point of...
Since lines and face are just terms used to describe symbolic interaction, Goffman was just trying to say that people use symbolic interaction as a means of having a relationship with each other.
On the topic of gender, he believes that we are constantly trying to give the best impression of our gender, and we form our gender on a daily basis. Goffman calls this “impression management.” He also believes that our identity is formed through our day-to-day interactions, so if someone was to question my gender (which has happened in the past), then I would, in turn, question my gender. Though I believe that at least some part of what Goffman is saying is true, authors Don Zimmerman and Candace West argue against his theory. In their collaborative work “Doing Gender,” the authors present the idea that others’ opinions of an individual’s gender, and which gender they see that individual as has nothing to do with one’s display of
People should be aware on the negatives of cloning, it’s unethical, very risky, and irreligious...in my eyes just plain wrong. In addition, cloning involves killing a great number of embryos. Therefore, out of many of animals that were cloned, very few have survived and the ones that have cant live on their own and have become dependant on scientists for everything down to oxygen.
Firstly, the expense of dog cloning is a shocking. According to Kristin Lewis, the basic price for dog cloning is 155,000 thousand dollars (23). Although IN RNL the lowest price they have ever cloned an animal is 30,000 thousand dollars. And Bio Arts has the base price of the basic 155,000 thousand dollars (Davis). Despite all that and if your clone dies, you will not get your money back for the clone you purchased.
Pet cloning is a controversial practice. The article, Should You Clone Your Pet? sheds some light onto both sides of the argument. Most of the reasons for people being against this have to do with moral or ethical dilemmas. Most of the arguments for cloning are fueled by powerful emotions.
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Double Day
(7) Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden City: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 17-18.
Lewis, C.S. Till We Have Faces; A Myth Retold. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1984. Print.
(“The Interactionist Perspective.”) In regards to gender, characteristics of masculinity and femininity are a part of daily interactions. Symbolic interactionists believe gender identities are performed rather than assigned. According to the sociologist Erving Goffman, people will “attempt to control the perception of one’s own image. In society, men and women are expected to act in a way that represents their gender. In the event that a man is not perceived as masculine or a woman is not perceived as feminine, their social standings will reflect this perception. (“The Interactionist