If Goffman Had Read Levinas

Abstract

The article attempts to explore fundamental assumptions underlying Goffman’s theory of interaction. Goffman’s work has long been criticized for certain pervasive weaknesses such as the idea of a self as ‘inside’ and therefore inaccessible, an indifference to any distinction between appearance and reality, and a lack of concern for morality. It is argued that combating these and related problems necessitates uncovering the philosophical roots of Goffman’s way of conceptualizing the self. The article identifies these roots in some assumptions that Goffman shares with and may well have adapted from Sartre. Sartre’s theory of the self is outlined and clear affinities between these two authors’ main assumptions are revealed. The import of this linkage is to point to inevitable obstacles standing in the way of developing the self as a truly social being if one begins with the understanding of what a self is common to both Goffman and Sartre. Next the article puts forward, as an alternative, the ideas of Levinas who has produced an almost point by point rebuttal of Sartre’s version of the self. The key point is that, unlike Sartre and Goffman, Levinas locates the self’s being or consciousness as taking a positive rather than negative form. This differing starting point has demonstrable repercussions for the way the self can relate to both material things and other people. In particular, such a self can be available to, rather than (as in Sartre and Goffman) hidden from, others and is therefore susceptible to others’ influence. Instead of being threatened by the other, there is scope for what Levinas calls non-possessiveness towards and hospitality to others. Finally, the article points out how such a conception of self can be utilized to resolve some specific problems with Goffman’s depiction of social interaction such as his amorality, his views on the role of language and his claims to the omnipresence of concealment.

Cold shoulders and napkins handed: gestures of responsibility

“…Sitting in the cafe is a course of conduct that is concerned with others with whom you are together as customers. These others, even in a place so full of mutual inspection as the café, are nevertheless not ‘onlookers’ but rather people who may or may not ‘notice’ what is occurring; it is a reciprocal arrangement between everybody in the café because we allow ourselves to be exposed and vulnerable to others when in public and vice versa (Raffel 2002). For Goffman, gestures are a continuing problem besetting his impression‐managers in public.…”

“…Would not people who could be expressive in this way constitute a welcome relief to a field constrained, under Goffman's influence, to treat people (according to Gouldner's memorable imagery) as ‘tricky, harassed little devils’ (Gouldner 1970, 380)? (Raffel 2002, 195)…”

“…But with what does this leave us? As Stanley Raffel (2002) argues, faking enjoyment or acceptance of others, or being an imposter, loses all meaning unless people can also appear as they really are. We will develop this point further in the conclusion.…”

The Ethical Phenomenology of Emmanuel Levinas: Drawing on Phenomenology to Explore the Central Features of Family Life

“…These themes have contributed significantly to the work of theorists such as Jacques Derrida (Plant, ), Jean‐Luc Marion (), Zygmunt Bauman (, , ), and others. His work seems to just be gaining further attention and significance as it finds its influence in numerous fields, such as law (Manderson, ), communications and technology (Miller, ; Pinchevski, ), health (Clifton‐Soderstrom, ; Lindh, Severinsson, & Berg, ), psychology (Gantt & Williams, ; Goodman, ; Kunz, ; Williams & Gantt, ), sociology (Raffel, ; Smart, , ), therapy (Larner, ), education (Child, Williams, Birch, & Boody, ; Standish, ), and feminism (Chanter, ; Perpich, ).…”

Tradition and innovation in classical sociology: Tenth Anniversary Report ofJCS

“…As such, 'sociological classicality' is not confined to any particular place or time. In search of this eclectic genre of social thought, we have explored the works of Michel Foucault (Datta, 2008;Joas, 2008;Lemke, 2010), Pierre Bourdieu (Fowler, 2007;Robbins, 2002Robbins, , 2007Robbins, , 2010, Erving Goffman and Emmanuel Levinas (Raffel, 2002), John Rawls (Special Issue: Rawls, 2009), John Galbraith (Smart, 2003), Philip Rieff (Special Issue: Fine and Manning, 2003), Hans-Georg Gadamer (How, 2007), Theodor W. Adorno (Hagens, 2006), Alfred N. Whitehead and Herbert Marcuse (Moore, 2007), Niklas Luhmann (Paul, 2001;Thornhill, 2010;Vanderstraeten, 2002), and Gunnar Myrdal (Eliaeson, 2008). It is also important to point out, however, that we have examined themes and issues that are central to contemporary sociology, notably debates on globalization (Inglis and Robertson, 2008), economics (Graça, 2008;Smart, 2003;Zafirovski, 2005), methodological nationalism (Chernilo, 2008), relativism (Boudon, 2005), the politics of difference (Susen, 2010), critical theory (Rodríguez Martínez, 2004), and citizenship (Special Issue: Turner and Susen, 2010).…”