Talk:Erving Goffman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Erving Goffman, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007) |
Re THEATER. Frankly, I do not know which passage or passages in the work of Erving Goffman this article is referring to with that silly statement about theater, parking lot, and cloak room. But let me say this: If even a great poet sleeps now and then, a great sociologist can hardly be blamed for nodding off. So Goffman may well have uttered this or a similar bit of nonsense in an unguarded moment. The question is, should the article hold him up to ridicule for such a lapse or should it not rather quote his views as presented in his major works?
Anyone who wants to read Goffman in a nutshell is well advised to pick up his major essay Where the action is. It was written in 1967 and can be found, together with five earlier works, in the collection Interaction Ritual. It starts off with a famous quote attributed to Karl Wallenda:To be on the wire is life; the rest is waiting. Does this sound like "cloak room"? Read this, please: Wheresoever action is found, chance-taking is sure to be. Does this bring to mind a "parking lot"? Certainly not. A close reading of the essay will reveal that for Goffman, at least when he is wide awake, life is all about real stuff (Fateful activity, pundonor, credibility etc etc.), and never about passive theater watching. Even vicarious enjoyment means action in Goffman's view and he states this explicitly. Again and again. Please note how the essay concludes: These naked little spasms of the self occur at the end of the world, but there at the end is action and character.
To exclude any possible misunderstanding: Not only this essay but all other "Tales of Goffman" (if I am allowed to express myself in this forum in a somewhat lighter vein for a moment) are well worth reading and, if I may in a closing remark point out also the following, would deserve at least a mention in the article. I am quite convinced that even in America some competent librarian can be found who would be up to this task. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 19:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
This needs to be expanded. Goffman was of notable importance in sociology, and especially in the formation of postmodernism. I myself could add some from what I have read of his work (only a little bit), and from what I know in general about his philosophy, but I think someone should really make this an acceptable article. --Kevin L. 06:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Goffman was almost certainly not an existentialist...and I don't know how you can see he was a forerunner to postmodernism.
Goffman cites existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre at length in 'the presentation of self in everyday life' so it's not that strange to call him an existentialist.
Contents |
[edit] Picture
Is that picture really appropriate for wikipedia? While I quite like it, I wonder if it is fitting with an encyclopedic article. Drifter 06:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Goffmans influence -- I really don't find it to be a proper describtion of Goffman to rank him just next to Marx, Weber and Durkheim. These figures being 'founding fathers' of sociology - Goffman coming much later and with far lesser influence - even than many of his contemporaries.
[edit] Goffman's Conversational Theory Of Face
Their should be at least a brief reference in this article explaining Goffman's introduction of the trem: "face"into the world of English Language theorem . Goffman used the term face for the image of ourselves that we present to others in a conversation. The face we present can vary: for example, we may present ourselves as a good friend in one context but as knowledgeable student or teacher in another. So teacher isn't going to use foul or derogatory language in a classroom situation, because his student's look up to him as a role-model and this would be wholly inappropriate. However he might use foul language around a friend whom he is annoyed with; this is because different relationships merit different attitudes, how we express these attitudes towards others is known as face.--BusinessMan1 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Weber
Which weber? J. D. Redding 04:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Max Weber
[edit] Date of death
The first line states Goffman's date of death as November 19, 1982, while in the last line of "Biography," it is written: "On November 20, 1982 he died of stomach cancer."
Which date is it, November 19 or 20?
Emlipe 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Social Interactionism
This article states the following:
"Goffman's greatest contribution to social theory is his formulation of symbolic interaction as dramaturgical perspective in his 1959 book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Although Goffman is often characterized as a symbolic interactionist, he tried to correct the flaws of symbolic interactionism"
Yet the article on Social Interactionism states the following:
"Herbert Blumer(1969), who coined the term "symbolic interactionism," set out three basic premises of the perspective:"
There appears to be a discrepancy here, in that Goffman is working on a theory ten years before it has been proposed. This is a little confusing, to be honest...
217.45.186.134 (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Some Essay Writing Dude
