This essay will compare and contrast two social science views about the ordering of social life. It will look at what social order is and how it effects our daily lives and explore the differences and similarities between the work of Erving Goffman and Michel Foucault. It will consider Buchanan’s and Monderman’s views on ordering public space to highlight Goffman’s focus on the way individuals interact with each other and Foucault’s emphasis on authoritative knowledge by authorities or experts. Social order is the term used to describe a ‘stable social situation in which connections are maintained without change, or else change occurs in a predictable way’. (Taylor S, 2009, p173) Each of us is an individual with our own thoughts and experiences however we are also beings that need to interact with each other for social contact and reassurance. It is in these moments that the behaviours we use, and the behaviours we expect others to use, enable us to live together with an understanding of the rules that are imagined and practised in daily life. Social order is constructed and shaped by society, therefore there are many different types of order within different environments and cultures, as well as different social orders which co-exist in the same society. Individuals can change and adapt, choosing a social order that fits with their needs at any particular time. In order to maintain the social order there is a set of unwritten norms we are expected to live by. These norms are defined as ‘shared sets of values or expectations about how people will or should behave’. (Silva E, 2009, p307). Sociologist Erving Goffman and social philosopher Michel Foucault both concern themselves with the wider understanding of how society is produc... ... middle of paper ... ...lva E, 2009 p322) In conclusion, it would be very hard to co-exist in society without some sort of order and structure. Both scientists present their cases for social order through a significant amount of evidence collated from either practical observations, as in Goffman’s case, or historical observations, as in Foucault’s case. Neither Goffman or Foucault's theories offer a perfect solution to production of social order but both can be used at particular times and places because social order differs with time and place. Goffman’s theory looks at the individual and their impact on society whilst Foucault looks at the individual as a feature of society. They both use knowledge, discourses and authority to convey their imagined social order in public spaces and it shows that when we put these theories into place we can all live together within a harmonious society.
This essay focuses on two theories of Erving Goffman and Michel Foucault on how society is ordered; it will attempt to show how these two theorists approached understanding society and how it is ordered, as well as look for any similarities or differences between the two theories. When looking at how social order is constructed, it is not only important to study the role of the individual, but also the role of the state or government. The part they play in the order and rules of every day interactions. Social order refers to unspoken rules of conduct in everyday life, or stable social situation in which connections are maintained without change or if change occurs it is in predictable way. (Taylor, 2009, p.173). in addition these case studies; Buchanan report (1963), Monderman thesis (1980) will be linked to Goffman’s and Foucault’s theories, to help us to understand how order is attained and maintained by individuals, authorities and institutions, in certain places, and in different contexts as well as how social order is constructed at different historical moments. This essay concentrates on Goffman’s and Foucault’s theories, claims, and concepts, by comparing and contrasting their ideas on social order and who makes the order, the evidence that they draw upon, and the different levels of social life each theorist chooses to focus upon. Both Goffman and Foucault are concerned with the wider questions of how society is produced and reproduced, but specifically how social order is made and remade. At the same time, both also seek broader ways of understanding singular issues in interaction. Goffman focused on the individual, interactional order, and performances, while in contrast Foucault focuses on discourses, power, knowle...
Kendall, D., Linden, R., & Murray, J. L. (2008). Sociology in our times: The essentials (4th Cdn
The idea of a “social structure” is probably one of the most popular and influential concepts in the world of sociology, with social theorists from Durkheim, Marx, Weber, and Parsons, all base their work off the fundamental idea that there is a large societal structure which pl...
Social order is made and remade through people’s behaviours, interactions and choices and is neither static nor fixed. This essay will provide examples of the ways in which social order is made and remade and how this happens on both a formal and informal level, although when disorder occurs, it is clear to see the level of work that goes into the making and remaking of social order (Blakeley, 2014, p85).
“Social conformity has been practiced in societies around the world since ancient times,” and the reason it is so effective is that humans have an inherent need to be accepted as part of a group (Sadat). Furthermore, Hossna Sadat reports that:
Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. 1st ed. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1966. Print.
As people socialize, they create interactions whose products are influential to act back upon the people to determine or constrain actions. Moreover, social interactions may be likened to a theatre whereby people are the actors as the rest of the people are the audience. These other people actively observe the role-playing and respond by reacting to the performances. However, people’s behaviors tend to change when they are alone as they get rid of the roles they play in front of others.
Social order derives from an interpretation of a net of relations, symbols and social codes. It creates 'a sense of how individuals all fit together in shared spaces' (Silva, 2009, p. 308), and thus relies on encoding of human behaviour in physical spaces as well as among various individuals. In any society, people must acquire knowledge of how to relate to one another and their environment. Order is then established by a normalisation and standardisation of this knowledge. This essay will examine two views on social order, applied to social sciences, and embodied in everyday life. It will compare and contrast a Canadian sociologist, Erving Goffman, and a French philosopher, Michel Foucault. Through an analysis of these two figures, the text will present different ways of looking at social ordering and individuals' place in a human society. Firstly, it will be shown how Goffman and Foucault approach the subject of social order, finding patterns of behaviour in micro and macro-social realities. Secondly, the essay will explore Goffman's and Foucault's views on underlying characteristics of social order, one drawing on performances, and the other on a reinforced adaptation. Finally, it will be argued that each theorist comments on a perception of the self, and its authenticity as a result of social ordering. In conclusion, it will be clear that order is a set of linked social structures, which cannot be reduced to one single theory.
Social norms are really important to our society’s functioning. If certain norms were not followed it is almost certain chaos would ensue. Not only do we follow social norms in order to prevent chaos, we also follow them to avoid the consequences of not following them, especially if the functional perspective is accurate. On occasion though, breaking subtle norms that we may not think about often can prove to have interesting results.
Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman’s work was centralised around there two different concepts of how your identity is formed through the process of power and expert knowledge. This Essay will discuss the ideas of Michel Foucault who was a French Social Theorist. His theories addressed the relationship between power and knowledge and how both of these are used as a form of social control through society. The essay will look at Foucault’s work in The Body and Sexuality, Madness and Civilisation and Discipline and Punish which displays how he conceptualised Power and identity on a Marxist and macro basis of study. The Essay will also address the Ideas of Erving Goffman who was A Canadian Born Sociologist who’s key study was what he termed as interactional order, that is how the functions of ritual and order of every individual member of society, in everyday life, interact to form social order. He suggested the metaphor of the stage, where people play roles in specific everyday situations using trust and tact, the control of bodily gestures, face and gaze and the use of language to set the parameters of their social interactions. People individually participate in these rules of conduct to produce social order Looking at Goffmans work of the Presentation of One Self in Everyday life, Stigma and Asylums t Goffman argues that it is these interactions, or the interactional order that constructs society. This Essay looks to give an Insight of how Foucault and Goffman Compare and contrast in their theories to give an understanding of how the exertion of power and expert knowledge constructs individuals Identities.
As society changes and technology advances, the methods and frequency of social interaction will undoubtedly change with it. Yet, no matter how drastic these changes, Goffman’s conceptualizations of presentation of self within social interaction will hold true. As long as the human race exists, and as long as social interaction occurs between people, Goffman’s ideas will remain ever present. The challenge lays in our interpretation these of concepts, and our effective, or ineffective, application of them to everyday life.
Social structure is created by the distribution of wealth, power and prestige. The social structure consists of taken for granted beliefs about the world and both constrain and regulate human actions. The social structure consists of substructures such as class, gender and ethnicity. These groups are formed within society; each group shares common attitudes, values, social norms, lifestyle and material goods. People within society stay within the guidelines of the soc...
...lay in societal change. However it was only until the works of Durkheim and Simmel that the role of individual interaction and society is brought to the forefront. Durkheim largely viewed the individual as needing society as a mechanism of constraint to the aspirations of an eternal goal. Finally, Simmel was able to expand on Durkheim’s dualism by noting that society could be viewed as more than a mechanism of constraint rather as an accumulation of individual interaction. Either through a combination or as individuals each theorist distinct view of the relationship between the individual and society demonstrates a new understanding towards the nature of social reality.
Psathas, George, Theoretical Perspectives on Goffman: Critique and Commentary, Sociological Perspectives, Fall 1996 pp. 383
In order for society to meet the basic social needs of its members, social institutions, which are not buildings, or an organization or even people, but a system whose of social norms, mores and folkways that help make people feel important. Social institutions, according to our textbook, is defined as a fundamental component of this organization in which individuals, occupying defined statues, are “regulated by social norms, public opinion, law and religion” (Amato 2004, p.961). Social institutions are meant to meet people’s basic needs and enable the society to survive. Because social institutions prescribe socially accepted beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors, they exert considerable social control over individuals.