Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository

CHAPTER
6
ALIGNMENT IN ACTION: NEGATIVE AND
6.0 Introduction
POSITIVE SOCIABLE ALIGNMENT
In Chapter 31 set out a general model of facework as alignment. This
was based on a reading of both Goffman's (1967) notion of ritual equilibrium in
talk, and Brown and Levinson's (1987) fundamental face needs. Central to this
proposed model was the notion of alignment, specifically, what I referred to as
positive and negative alignments. To recap, I used the term positive alignment
to refer to talk characterised by the expression of solidarity, similarity, and
commonality. In and through such talk, it was suggested that participants'
positive face needs were realised. Conversely, I used the term negative
alignment to refer to talk characterised by the expression of individuated and
unique standpoints, definitions, or experiences. In and through such talk,
negative face needs could thus be realised. I argued that both types of
alignments were endemic to sociable conversation. In short, I suggested that
sociable conversation could be seen to operate between these two poles of
alignment.
Importantly, I posited such alignments as occurring within a wider set of
boundaries or thresholds, ones which guided participants in their achievement
and management of general equilibrium, a notion drawn directly from Goffman's
(1967) conceptual i sati on of ritual equilibrium. I noted that, although both positive
and negative alignments were a necessary part of sociable conversation,
continuing the logic of the alignment model I suggested that there may be limits
or boundaries beyond which equilibric conversation became disequilibric. Such
limits should apply to both positive and negative alignments. For example, I
argued that too much negative alignment might individuate or differentiate a
137