Erving Goffman - The Interaction Order
● Social interaction = that which transpires in social situations; environments in which
multiple individuals are physically in each other’s presence (or phone etc)
○ this approach means that macro structures/distinctions are initially
irrelevant
○ the theoretical justification of the interaction order is that its contained
elements fit together better than with elements outside the order
● Most of our lives is spend in the presence of other people - socially situated
○ the consequences of our social interaction have been treated as effects of
social structures e.g. class, race, gender, etc
○ in fact we need to explore what these effects have in common, so that we
can categorise the social interaction that leads to them
● What are the characteristics of the interaction order?
○ engrossment, involvement and states of participants
○ face-to-face interaction seems rooted in a universal precondition of social
life
○ we are able to interpret behaviour as pointing to intentions
○ individuals are able to share a joint focus of attention, allowing
coordination. speech makes this way more efficient
○ individuals can be identified by individual (unique impression based on
appearance, tone, name etc) or categoric (placement in categories e.g. class) identification
○ interactions places us in danger, so we may make deals to ensure our
safety e.g. submit to a coercive power
■ but interaction also enables us, often through the same
mechanisms (sex, violence) that can threaten us
○ similar properties/patterns of interaction in many diverse social situations
○ a cognitive relation with those present, that allows us to make
judgements about how to interact and hence behave meaningfully
● The interactive order is in fact orderly, in virtue of ‘a large base of shared cognitive
presuppositions’
● There are two common explanations for the interactive order
○ the contract model - participants pay a small price and obtain a large
convenience
○ the consensus model - it it seen as a product of normative consensus.
Individuals take for granted rules that they nevertheless consider just
■ but neither tells us anything about the effects of
interactive order, only the motive
■ in any case, interactive order can survive systematic
violation
● though it may be in the individual’s
interest to convince others to maintain the order, it is not necessarily in
his own
■ do we really believe that individuals always get more
from the order than they lose? e.g. disadvantaged groups
● if not, why do they generally uphold it
● In spite of unequal distribution of rights and risk in the interactive order, there is a traffic
of use which facilitates a diversity of projects
● Social interaction = that which transpires in social situations; environments in which
multiple individuals are physically in each other’s presence (or phone etc)
○ this approach means that macro structures/distinctions are initially
irrelevant
○ the theoretical justification of the interaction order is that its contained
elements fit together better than with elements outside the order
● Most of our lives is spend in the presence of other people - socially situated
○ the consequences of our social interaction have been treated as effects of
social structures e.g. class, race, gender, etc
○ in fact we need to explore what these effects have in common, so that we
can categorise the social interaction that leads to them
● What are the characteristics of the interaction order?
○ engrossment, involvement and states of participants
○ face-to-face interaction seems rooted in a universal precondition of social
life
○ we are able to interpret behaviour as pointing to intentions
○ individuals are able to share a joint focus of attention, allowing
coordination. speech makes this way more efficient
○ individuals can be identified by individual (unique impression based on
appearance, tone, name etc) or categoric (placement in categories e.g. class) identification
○ interactions places us in danger, so we may make deals to ensure our
safety e.g. submit to a coercive power
■ but interaction also enables us, often through the same
mechanisms (sex, violence) that can threaten us
○ similar properties/patterns of interaction in many diverse social situations
○ a cognitive relation with those present, that allows us to make
judgements about how to interact and hence behave meaningfully
● The interactive order is in fact orderly, in virtue of ‘a large base of shared cognitive
presuppositions’
● There are two common explanations for the interactive order
○ the contract model - participants pay a small price and obtain a large
convenience
○ the consensus model - it it seen as a product of normative consensus.
Individuals take for granted rules that they nevertheless consider just
■ but neither tells us anything about the effects of
interactive order, only the motive
■ in any case, interactive order can survive systematic
violation
● though it may be in the individual’s
interest to convince others to maintain the order, it is not necessarily in
his own
■ do we really believe that individuals always get more
from the order than they lose? e.g. disadvantaged groups
● if not, why do they generally uphold it
● In spite of unequal distribution of rights and risk in the interactive order, there is a traffic
of use which facilitates a diversity of projects
