Disruption and the theory of the interaction order

Abstract

Micro-sociological theory has traditionally stressed interactional pressures towards alignment: actors' attempts to co-construct a shared definition of the situation. We argue that this model provides an insufficient account of the coordination of action and of the emergence of intersubjectivity among actors. To complement the focus on alignment, we develop a theory of disruption-a perceived misalignment of the dramaturgical structure of interaction in coordinating expected lines of action. We develop a theory of the interaction order that takes the interplay between interactional alignment and disruption as a foundational challenge both for sociology and for actors in their everyday lives. We focus on the practical ways in which actors negotiate both interactional breaches and wider relational ruptures, and how they differentiate between disruptions-of relations and disruptions-for them. By doing so, we connect the interaction order to a wider relational order, providing a bridge between micro-level interactionism and the sociology of culture.

Character Problems as Collective Behavior

“…In contrast, Tavory and Fine (2020) highlight the role of disruption in the production of intersubjectivity, joint action, and the interaction order. More fateful than “nominal disagreements,” disruptions break the “dramatic structure” of interaction, violating “the shared rhythms and underlying rules” (Tavory and Fine 2020:369). Dramatic disruptions can lead to “relational ruptures” that threaten “the ongoing relationship within which the interaction occurs” (Tavory and Fine 2020:374).…”

“…Attending to the rhythms of interaction reveals another bias in micro‐sociological theory: the tendency toward interactional smoothness (Tavory and Fine 2020). The interactionist literature is replete with references to actors attempting to “preserve the smooth flow of interaction,” documenting examples of the dramaturgical moves we make to ignore or repair a variety of breaches in interaction and maintain a “veneer of consensus” (Goffman 1959:9; 1963).…”

“…While micro‐sociology has long held an affinity for alignment in interaction, disruption—the other side of smoothness—has been downplayed. And while the pragmatist emphasis on the relational nature of smoothness (through habit) disruption (through blocked action) and resolution (through deliberation) would seem to protect interactionism as an intellectual descendant from sliding too far toward smoothness, “interactionists emphasized shared solutions rather than the constitutive role of problems,” treating disruption “as a challenge people must overcome” in the quest for alignment (Tavory and Fine 2020:367, 369).…”

“…More fateful than “nominal disagreements,” disruptions break the “dramatic structure” of interaction, violating “the shared rhythms and underlying rules” (Tavory and Fine 2020:369). Dramatic disruptions can lead to “relational ruptures” that threaten “the ongoing relationship within which the interaction occurs” (Tavory and Fine 2020:374). Alternatively, disruptions may be treated as temporary breaches confined to the situation.…”

“…Alternatively, disruptions may be treated as temporary breaches confined to the situation. Groups often discover, define, and redefine disruptions beyond the immediate situation in which the violation occurred: “What was treated as a minor misalignment in interaction may take on more importance if the participants or others in their community treat it as reflective of a character flaw, a gap in identities, or a marker of a noxious social order” (Tavory and Fine 2020:374).…”