Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository Download (23MB) - University of Salford Institutional Repository
collaborative alignment practices throughout this chapter, but the analytical focus shall be on the identification and demonstration of what are in effect the symbolic resources with which participants in each culture play out sociability. In terms of the study as a whole, the findings presented in this chapter will be essential to the analysis of sociable conversation presented in the following and final analytical chapter. 7.1 Conversational Claims and the 'Self' Before I go on to demonstrate how the concept of the self may be drawn upon to systematically address the sociological bases for cultural differences in sociable conversation, I need briefly to clarify exactly what is meant by the concept as it will be employed here. There are two main conceptual i sations of the self informing this study, largely due to their direct relationship to the concept of face. The first is that developed in the writings of Goffman (1967; 1969; 1971; 1974; 1981), often referred to as a'symbolic internationalists' reading of the self (see Malone 1997). The second is that posited as a basis for cultural variation in the conceptualisation of face and subsequent facework practices (see e. g. Morisaki and Gudykunst 1994; Scollon and Scollon 1995), referred to earlier as a self-construal conceptual isation (see Chapter 1). These two readings of the self are not only intrinsically connected to the concept of face, but equally fundamental to any cross-cultural approach to the study of facework. Further, as I shall illustrate more clearly in the following chapter, these two ptima facie unrelated conceptual isations can be seen to compliment each other in the analysis of facework across two different cultures. I shall develop the notion of the self-construal as one relevant to the analysis of ongoing conversational facework at the beginning of the following chapter (Chapter 8). Now however, I want to concentrate on the concept specifically developed by Erving Goffman. The concept of the self was central to Goffman's writings. It was a concept however which consisted of a range of different presentational properties and interactional facets. The self could be conceived of as a 192
performer, a player, an image, a figure, a deity or idol, a bounded set of territories or preserves, and something which could be treated with varying degrees of respect, considerateness, ritual license, and symbolic distance (see Lemert and Branaman [1997], and Malone [1997] for excellent overviews). For example, in Goffman's seminal focus on the self-presentational aspects of everyday life (Goffman 1969), the self was conceived of as consisting of two 'basic parts': Both a performer -'a harried fabricator of impressions involved in the ... task of staging a performance', and as a character -'a figure, typically a fine one, whose spirit, strength, and other sterling qualities the performance was designed to evoke' (1969,222). Similar metaphors were carried forward into On Face-Work (Goffman 1967) where the self was further conceived of under a 'double definition': As both a 'player in a ritual game', and 'an image pieced together from the expressive implications of the flow of events' (Goffman 1967, 31). These metaphorical representations capture what Goffman famously referred to as the 'dual mandate' (1967) of the self - presenting and presented, player and played entity. Goffman took this conceptual isation of the self and placed it in the main focus of his life's work - the social situation (see Goffman 1963). Goffman's continuing emphasis on the social situation prescribed a consideration of selves as essentially situated entities, that is, situationally normative, recognisable and, of fundamental importance, of a nature which could be supported by co-present others. From formal roles (the brain surgeon) to more informal statuses (the party guests), selves could be regarded as operating within a range situated contexts. Because of the potential multiplicity of situational selves, persons were best conceived of as normatively committing particular types of selves, participating not as total persons but ratherin terms of special capacities or statuses ... in terms of a special self (Goffman 1967,52). In this sense, the self was not regarded by Goffman as an atomistic individuated entity, but intrinsically connected with both the selves of others, and the situation at large. Thus, selves presented for situated audiences required both recognition and ratification on the grounds in order to be successfully realised. An added dimension to the self was posited in Goffman's work on informal conversation (see e. g. Goffman 1974). Here, Goffman 193
- Page 151 and 152: These various symbols are intended
- Page 153 and 154: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 155 and 156: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Rather than
- Page 157 and 158: 19 EP: ' [Although I mean that [now
- Page 159 and 160: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 161 and 162: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 163 and 164: detrimental effects foreigners are
- Page 165 and 166: 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
- Page 167 and 168: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 169 and 170: 28 HB: but at the end of the day >1
- Page 171 and 172: approach, I hope to further illumin
- Page 173 and 174: 37 KJ: I never had any day to day (
- Page 175 and 176: 2 bevor (. ) die Schlange nicht zeh
- Page 177 and 178: ot non-ratifi cation and non-suppor
- Page 179 and 180: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 181 and 182: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 183 and 184: What happens in this particular exc
- Page 185 and 186: To reiterate, positive threshold br
- Page 187 and 188: 41 LIP: [IN FACT THERE WAs quite a
- Page 189 and 190: What happens here is that KIP proff
- Page 191 and 192: 17 KH: the road (1) >and if he want
- Page 193 and 194: 1 2 3 4 5 6 which a new set of indi
- Page 195 and 196: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 197 and 198: and English differences in conversa
- Page 199 and 200: Notes to Chapter 6 1 The only insta
- Page 201: study is a sociological one, and it
- Page 205 and 206: English cultures respectively. In a
- Page 207 and 208: I will shortly illustrate how each
- Page 209 and 210: 18 KJ: [(Graphic drawin)= 19 LM: =O
- Page 211 and 212: The in-the-know self is a second sy
- Page 213 and 214: documentaries to having witnessed r
- Page 215 and 216: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is
- Page 217 and 218: Excerpt 7.6'Up a Hill' The sociable
- Page 219 and 220: RP&EP's mobilisation of an in-the-k
- Page 221 and 222: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 223 and 224: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 225 and 226: Excerpt 7.10 Was muss Mann machen?
- Page 227 and 228: Often, knowledgeable selves are ali
- Page 229 and 230: 7.4 Positive Selves I suggested ear
- Page 231 and 232: 27 RP: =get out of it= 28 LM: =. HH
- Page 233 and 234: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 235 and 236: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is
- Page 237 and 238: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 239 and 240: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
- Page 241 and 242: of these selves at conversational w
- Page 243 and 244: develop the comparative focus, one
- Page 245 and 246: CHAPTER 8 ALIGNING SELVES IN THE AC
- Page 247 and 248: atification and support of unique,
- Page 249 and 250: Fig 8.2b The Individuated Selves (a
- Page 251 and 252: Excerpt 8.1 'Cookie's Party' I LM:
collaborative alignment practices throughout this chapter, but the analytical<br />
focus shall be on the identification and demonstration <strong>of</strong> what are in effect the<br />
symbolic resources with which participants in each culture play out sociability. In<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> the study as a whole, the findings presented in this chapter will be<br />
essential to the analysis <strong>of</strong> sociable conversation presented in the following and<br />
final analytical chapter.<br />
7.1 Conversational Claims and the 'Self'<br />
Before I go on to demonstrate how the concept <strong>of</strong> the self may be drawn<br />
upon to systematically address the sociological bases for cultural differences in<br />
sociable conversation, I need briefly to clarify exactly what is meant by the<br />
concept as it will be employed here. There are two main conceptual i sations <strong>of</strong><br />
the self informing this study, largely due to their direct relationship to the<br />
concept <strong>of</strong> face. The first is that developed in the writings <strong>of</strong> G<strong>of</strong>fman (1967;<br />
1969; 1971; 1974; 1981), <strong>of</strong>ten referred to as a'symbolic internationalists'<br />
reading <strong>of</strong> the self (see Malone 1997). The second is that posited as a basis for<br />
cultural variation in the conceptualisation <strong>of</strong> face and subsequent facework<br />
practices (see e. g. Morisaki and Gudykunst 1994; Scollon and Scollon 1995),<br />
referred to earlier as a self-construal conceptual isation (see Chapter 1). These<br />
two readings <strong>of</strong> the self are not only intrinsically connected to the concept <strong>of</strong><br />
face, but equally fundamental to any cross-cultural approach to the study <strong>of</strong><br />
facework. Further, as I shall illustrate more clearly in the following chapter,<br />
these two ptima facie unrelated conceptual isations can be seen to compliment<br />
each other in the analysis <strong>of</strong> facework across two different cultures.<br />
I shall develop the notion <strong>of</strong> the self-construal as one relevant to the<br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> ongoing conversational facework at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the following<br />
chapter (Chapter 8). Now however, I want to concentrate on the concept<br />
specifically developed by Erving G<strong>of</strong>fman.<br />
The concept <strong>of</strong> the self was central to G<strong>of</strong>fman's writings. It was a<br />
concept however which consisted <strong>of</strong> a range <strong>of</strong> different presentational<br />
properties and interactional facets. The self could be conceived <strong>of</strong> as a 192