And the Razzie goes to... JULIA!

Using Goffman’s analysis of life as a performance we can understand why some people fail to convince us – they are essentially, bad actors. This comes to the forefront within politics. Why do people seem to if not distrust, then hate, Prime Minister Gillard? Tony Abbott may be an answer to this. Abbott seems to have mastered the technique of shit-slinging while maintaining his own facade. Our glimpses into his backstage contain images of Speedos and ‘family values’. Gillard’s backstage contains her de facto partner and reflects a somewhat hypocritical stance on gay marriage. Also, the critiques of Abbott’s performance don’t seem to reflect the emptiness of his criticisms and promises. Gillard’s performance whether it be her voice or costume is under constant criticism.

Politics in not only a front stage but a front stage that effects everyone else’s front and back stages. The job of a politician is to run the country and continually convince people that they are doing a good job at it. However, this can bring up issues in what Goffman explained as expression versus action. As Goffman explains, the people who do well at this ‘have the time and talent or talent to make it apparent that they are performing well’ (Goffman, 1971, p.43). Julia has a job to do and unlike Tony Abbott does have inexhaustible time to promote her image. Opposition is fundamentally about image and getting the job (a job interview on a massive scale). Once they are in power, though, there is work to be done.

Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin, pp.28-82

The Nature of Deference and Demeanour

One of my first impressions of studies within micro-sociology is the focus on individuals to explain larger societal structures, institutions and relationships. This focus allows the statistical ‘outliers’ in society which are often ignored in discussion to be incorporated in social theory. I think there is much to be learnt from the people who struggle to comply with the rules and norms of society. Consequently I was thrilled when Goffman opens this chapter with the notion that in order to ‘learn about personal properties’ it is insightful to look at the people who have ‘spectacularly’ failed to maintain them instead.

Goffman’s discussion of deference and demeanour was an interesting read. Deference is a reflection of the persons place in context of larger society where demeanour is the qualities given to individual by their social standing (at least by my understanding). The chapter is littered with examples to illustrate his points and the ones from the mental institution were particularly interesting. However, little was said about how we learn these practices which I think offer an interesting area of inspection.

During high school I did work experience in a local primary school year two class for a week. Supposedly, the children had learnt through their time at school that they were to defer to teachers (and most adults) through practices like addressing them by their title and last name and respecting a considerable sphere of no touching (unlike with their parents and other familial adults). When I entered the classroom dynamic relations were unclear because I did not know my position of deference nor did the students. Although I was older, not in a uniform and in a position of minor authority, the children were permitted to call me by my first name and noticed I was distinct from other members of staff. Also, my previous experience of children as a babysitter required that I be affectionate towards children. Quickly they were cuddling me and holding my hand and touching me to the point where I was unable to do my job because I could not move. The teacher and I came up with a system of ‘air-hugs’ so the children could show their affection without touching me. A system of deference was established quickly and assisted in the carrying out of that particular social situation.

Goffman, E 1967, ‘The Nature of Deference and Demeanour’, in Interactional Ritual: Essays of Face-to-Face Behaviour, Doubleday, New York, pp. 47-95